Fighters are ineffective in High Guard/TCS???

[far-trader]

I've usually figured the idea behind Fighters is to make them small so you can have (and carry) more and cram more hardpoints into the same tonnage. Anything approaching 100tons plus is not a Fighter imo, it's an SDB Heck, I have a hard time calling the IN standard 50ton craft "Fighters" and they're cannon.

But I think I'm with Bill (Whipsnade) on the point that Fighters make sense for certain TL and applications. And they don't have too work for every application.

EDIT: And he was posting while I was composing. I like what he said.

 

[Blue Ghost]

I know that more than a few individuals have stated that Fighters are not all that effective in the higher tech level ranges, but I got to wondering. How effective would this design be as a fighter in a TL 15 combat environment?

Ship: FTB-129845
Class: Fighter
Type: Banshee
Architect: Hal
Tech Level: 15

FZ-0106L91-200000-00003-0 MCr 223.400 96 Tons
Bat Bear 1 Missile battery factor 3
Crew: 1

Cargo: 0.280 Fuel: 19.200 EP: 19.200 Agility: 6
Fuel Treatment: Fuel Scoops and On Board Fuel Purification

Architects Fee: MCr 2.234 Cost in Quantity: MCr 178.720


Detailed Description

HULL
96.000 tons standard, 1,344.000 cubic meters, Needle/Wedge Configuration

CREW
Pilot

ENGINEERING
Jump-0, 6G Manuever, Power plant-20, 19.200 EP, Agility 6

*snip*

Only other craft with agility 6+ and size modifiers of +2 in their favor are immune to attacks by the Banshee fighter craft. All other craft however, are at risk against massed Banshee attacks.

For the record I submitted some fiction to MJD and his Traveller version with an attack craft called a "Banshee". Mine was a bit different than this flavor though. It's more of an attack craft with a couple of "light" turrets that doubles as a heavy fighter. Think a B-17 or a black widow night fighter. In terms of high guard I don't think it's really classified, nor am I sure that it can be. It's kind of like a high maneuvreable G-Carrier with a couple of Z-guns mounted on it in addition to its normal ordinance. It might be thought of as an advanced armed gig.

I was tinkering with the idea of making it jump capable, but again this falls outside of the realms of high-guard, so I either introduce some special technology and hand-wave the whole thing, or a simply redesign it.

Anyway, just thought I'd share.

 

[Icosahedron]

I think the idea that 'fighters get bigger' is a good one, but I'm also a little wary of using the term 'fighter' for Big Craft. I've always had craft in the 200 - 300 dT range called 'interceptors' which perform this role (just another label). I'd never considered tham from the angle of being a development from fighters, though - I'll ponder that.
The one disadvantage is in launching. You need a dispersed structure carrier to hold squadrons of interceptors.

 

[Hal]

I think the idea that 'fighters get bigger' is a good one, but I'm also a little wary of using the term 'fighter' for Big Craft. I've always had craft in the 200 - 300 dT range called 'interceptors' which perform this role (just another label). I'd never considered tham from the angle of being a development from fighters, though - I'll ponder that.
The one disadvantage is in launching. You need a dispersed structure carrier to hold squadrons of interceptors.

Technically speaking, you can use a Launch Tube to launch 200 dton hulls. It would take 25 x tonnage of the largest craft it will launch, which would be 25 x 200 or 5,000 dtons for the launch tube (roughly 4x larger than currently used on most 3rd Imperium ships that launch 50 dton fighters). But, there's no limit on how big the craft can be to be launched by Launch tube.

 

[Blue Ghost]

I think the idea that 'fighters get bigger' is a good one, but I'm also a little wary of using the term 'fighter' for Big Craft. I've always had craft in the 200 - 300 dT range called 'interceptors' which perform this role (just another label). I'd never considered tham from the angle of being a development from fighters, though - I'll ponder that.
The one disadvantage is in launching. You need a dispersed structure carrier to hold squadrons of interceptors.

Yeah, my version falls in a hull size between a Scout and a fighter, which I don't think is addressed by the Traveller ruleset (maybe a Pinnace? Not sure... too lazy to look it up now).

I may submit a similar proposal to one of the fanzines.

 

[tbeard1999]

...Please note how this Fighters Got Bigger idea makes fighters useful again through a minor change in labels and not by a major change in the rules as so many others suggest. No violence gets done to the rules, a few labels are tweaked instead.

FWIW, in my Traveller campaign, fighters of 20-29 tons are called "heavy fighters". Fighters of 30+ tons are called "gunships".

(Generally, gunships are extremely long duration craft, like the Vindicator (see its tender, the Kirk class gunship tender).

My campaign is a "small ships" campaign, so the gunships are actually just variants of ships boats (and they lack all the doodads available to HG ships). But the nomenclature helps the players visualize what they're encountering. I'm also toying with converting to HG (see my Book 2 starships re-done in HG thread), although the economics of the campaign universe will keep it a "small ships campaign" (the Commonwealth is too big and thinly populated to have fleets of 250kt dreadnoughts).

Anyhow, to help players visualize what they're encountering, here's a suggested taxonomy:

light fighter (10 tons-)
fighter (11-20 tons)
heavy fighter (21-29 tons)
assault fighter (30-39 tons)
light gunship (40-59 tons)
gunship (60-79 tons)
heavy gunship (80-120 tons)
corvette (120-200 tons)

Obviously, tonnage and descriptors can be altered, but this gives a nice mix of evocative names at least.

 

[Whipsnade]

Anyhow, to help players visualize what they're encountering, here's a suggested taxonomy: (big snip of good material)

Tbeard,

While I understand and applaud your desire to create and play in a Small Ship setting, I also am sure that you, as a both wargamer and successful wargame designer, are enough of an autodidact historian to realize that the idea of Tonnage Equates Class is little more than a conceit. Even when limited to a historical era or technological period, there are so many exceptions to this Tonnage Equates Class "rule" that it really becomes no rule at all.(1)

Having labels suggest or provide an evocation of size for your players is one thing. Having a label actually predict a size is something else entirely. In a nod to reality, there should be enough exceptions to your labels as to make the "prior service" knowledge of former servicemen and the "military trivia" knowledge of ship "cranks" useful to the adventuring party; i.e. Yeah, it's called a gunboat but don't let that fool you. They fiddled with the appropriations bill and used the gunboat money to build something more like a corvette. Believe you me, we should get the hell out of here before it arrives.


Regards,
Bill

1 - Let me point you to the RN's Powerful-class protected cruisers which were larger than contemporary battleships, the shell game the USN played with ship repair monies in the 1880s, the so-called "pocket battleships" of the KM which were neither pocket-sized or battleships, and hundreds of other label vs. size shenanigans throughout history.

 

[Bob Weaver]

1 - Let me point you to the RN's Powerful-class protected cruisers which were larger than contemporary battleships, the shell game the USN played with ship repair monies in the 1880s, the so-called "pocket battleships" of the KM which were neither pocket-sized or battleships, and hundreds of other label vs. size shenanigans throughout history.

Bill, just another example to support your point:
During the War of 1812, the US government, faced with fighting the biggest navy in the world, put a lot of money into building "frigates" - what Travellers would call 'cruisers' - that were so large and heavily armed that the British complained that the upstart Americans had built ships of the line - what Travellers would call 'battleships'. Several of the notable US victories at sea in that war were won by these oversized 'frigates', like the USS Constitution, "Old Ironsides".
IMTU, the labels can give a general sense of a ship's size, but the labels refer more to armament: Ships of the Line have spinals, Frigates are bay-armed, Destroyers mix bays and turrets, and Sloops are only turrets. But there are frigates larger than some SOTL's, and some Destroyers bigger than the small Frigates.
By the way, I appreciate your consise explanation of how/why 'things get bigger' - I have long been in favor of the 200-tn 'gunboat' as a superior alternative to the 50-tn 'fighter'. One of the things I really enjoy about this board is the well-reasoned essays and the scarcity of mindless flaming - since I have no gaming group at present, it's good to have a community to discuss our beloved old game.

Cheers,

Bob W.

 

[Blue Ghost]

FWIW, in my Traveller campaign, fighters of 20-29 tons are called "heavy fighters". Fighters of 30+ tons are called "gunships".

(Generally, gunships are extremely long duration craft, like the Vindicator (see its tender, the Kirk class gunship tender).

My campaign is a "small ships" campaign, so the gunships are actually just variants of ships boats (and they lack all the doodads available to HG ships). But the nomenclature helps the players visualize what they're encountering. I'm also toying with converting to HG (see my Book 2 starships re-done in HG thread), although the economics of the campaign universe will keep it a "small ships campaign" (the Commonwealth is too big and thinly populated to have fleets of 250kt dreadnoughts).

Anyhow, to help players visualize what they're encountering, here's a suggested taxonomy:

light fighter (10 tons-)
fighter (11-20 tons)
heavy fighter (21-29 tons)
assault fighter (30-39 tons)
light gunship (40-59 tons)
gunship (60-79 tons)
heavy gunship (80-120 tons)
corvette (120-200 tons)

Obviously, tonnage and descriptors can be altered, but this gives a nice mix of evocative names at least.

That looks like a nifty house rule you got.

Back in the day, our Traveller Universe rarely encountered fighters (in fact I can't think of a single instance off the top of my head ... maybe once? maybe twice? Not sure...). Our group just generally accepted that they existed and were important to the various navies on some level.

However, having said that, I was always mildly dismayed with the Rampart. I know it was a generic all purpose interceptor for use in a variety of sci-fi milieus, but, like yourself, I always figured there would be more than once type of fighter roaming the spaceways, or based on carriers.

The fiction I submitted to MJD regards a "wing" of fighters (various interceptors, strike craft and so forth) guarding a key system. In it I also have gunships along with heavy attack craft and interceptors of all sorts.

Right now it's all kind of generic stuff that I got in my head. Some of it based on real world examples (Tomcats verse Hornets kind of thing) to some games I used to play (Starcrafts' Terran fighters) to various sci-fi films; "Macross" Valkyrie series is always a favorte, as well as the fighters from the Gall Force anime series.

Fighters are an untapped venue in Traveller, which is part of the reason I wrote the fiction that I did, and submitted it to MJD. What becomes official later on will be interesting to see.

 

[Whipsnade]

Back in the day, our Traveller Universe rarely encountered fighters...

Blue Ghost,

That's odd. My groups encountered fighters all the time. They were wargamers first and roleplayers second, so they might have had a better grasp of what a "fighter" in Traveller actual is and what it can actually do. One of the things they knew it could do, and do very well, was mess their Beowulf, Marava, or Clan Trader up in no time at all.

However, having said that, I was always mildly dismayed with the Rampart. I know it was a generic all purpose interceptor for use in a variety of sci-fi milieus...

The Rampart wasn't meant for various sci-fi milieus. It was specifically meant for the OTU's TL15 Imperial Navy circa 1105. It was a setting-specific vessel created using (somewhat) setting-neutral rules.

... I always figured there would be more than once type of fighter roaming the spaceways, or based on carriers.

Same here. There are several fighter designs other than the Rampart found in various places in canon too.

The fiction I submitted to MJD regards a "wing" of fighters (various interceptors, strike craft and so forth) guarding a key system. In it I also have gunships along with heavy attack craft and interceptors of all sorts.

Sounds interesting.

Some of it based on real world examples (Tomcats verse Hornets kind of thing) to some games I used to play (Starcrafts' Terran fighters) to various sci-fi films; "Macross" Valkyrie series is always a favorte, as well as the fighters from the Gall Force anime series.

Oh my....

Tell me, how do fighters in your piece of fiction move? And what sorts of weapons do they carry?

Fighters are an untapped venue in Traveller...

Errr... no they aren't. They're mentioned and shown all through canon, the construction and combat rules allow for their use, there is a specific school in HG2 chargen for their pilots, and at various tech levels they have various roles.

What makes them seem "untapped" are the continued mistaken assumptions of what fighters actual abilities are given the inherent technological constraints of Traveller.

What becomes official later on will be interesting to see.

I'll be very interested to see what becomes "official" too, especially if it involves fighters moving in a non-Newtonian way like Starcraft or in a manner that any way resembles current atmospheric fighters.

Of course, it wouldn't be the first time a gross conceptual error has crept into Our Olde Game.


Regards,
Bill

 

[Whipsnade]

During the War of 1812, the US government, faced with fighting the biggest navy in the world, put a lot of money into building "frigates" - what Travellers would call 'cruisers'...

Bob,

Of course, once the war in Europe began winding down, the RN was able to transfer enough of their own "over-sized" and "mislabeled" frigates to the North American theater and quickly put a stop to the "mislabeled" USN frigates' success

IMTU, the labels can give a general sense of a ship's size, but the labels refer more to armament: (snip)

IMTU, classification (or labels) refer to a vessel's mission(s), just as in the real world. Of course the mission(s) associated with a given classification can change over time, again just like the real world.

Because certain classifications equate certain missions, and certain missions require certain capabilities, and certain capabilities will require certain systems which require certain volumes, certain classifications are loosely coupled to certain sizes. At a certain tech level a capital ship will need a spinal mount, so a capital ship will have to be big enough to mount that spinal, power it, move it, and protect it.

However, this "loose coupling" is nothing like the myriad of Size Equals Classification lists you'll see across the 'net with their repetitive Friagates 3K dTon to 5K dTon, Light Cruisers 5k dTon to 7K dTon, etc. entries.

By the way, I appreciate your consise explanation of how/why 'things get bigger' - I have long been in favor of the 200-tn 'gunboat' as a superior alternative to the 50-tn 'fighter'.

It continues to puzzle me why people gripe about the supposed uselessness of fighters in HG2. Fighters are deadly up to, roughly, TL13, so the complaints are only about two tech levels out of nine. Also, folks are just fine with HG2's technological progress providing them with PAWs and meson guns and changing battlewagons from missile platforms to spinal platforms, but when the same progress eventually removes fighters from the line of battle they squeal.

I just can't quite understand it. They want to cram all sorts of untested rules and other handwaves into HG2 to make fighters "useful" when all they need to do is turn the tech level dial down and leave the rules alone.

When it comes to "explaining" Traveller's various canonical oddities or making descriptions "work", I'd much rather tweak preconceptions and labels than cram in handwaves. Tweaking labels doe much less violence and handwaves never work as they all contain the seeds of their own destruction. Besides, playing on preconceptions is an old Traveller trick.

GDW did it all the time. First the Aslan were a Major Race, then they weren't, and nothing really changed except our preconceptions. First the Zhodani were mind rapers, then they weren't, and again nothing really changed except our preconceptions. If you take care and don't get hemmed in by the preconceptions labels create, you can "explain" many of canon's oddities with a slight change in perspective instead of the damaging blows from handwaves(1).

One of the things I really enjoy about this board is the well-reasoned essays and the scarcity of mindless flaming - since I have no gaming group at present, it's good to have a community to discuss our beloved old game.

I love the depth and breadth of the topics here too. It's always fascinating to see people deeply interested in aspects of the game I'd usually ignored. The different perspectives that provides always makes for good reading.

While there isn't mindless flaming, things can get testy - deliberately or not. Sadly and despite my intentions, I'm one of the Usual Suspects in the testy department.

Thanks for your post.


Regards,
Bill

1 - If you think people squeal about fighters, you should have seen the squealing on the JTAS boards when I suggested that the many oddities concerning the Interstellar Wars could be easily explained if, rather than "conquering" the First Imperium, the Terran Confederation instead provided the Ziru Sirka with it's last ruling dynasty.

 

[rancke]

Of course, once the war in Europe began winding down, the RN was able to transfer enough of their own "over-sized" and "mislabeled" frigates to the North American theater and quickly put a stop to the "mislabeled" USN frigates' success.

The oversized American frigates was a result of Congress refusing to approve of the building of a decent navy with (I forget how many) ships-of-the-line. But they did approve the building of ten frigates and didn't put a cost limit on that. So the US Navy shipwrights did everything they could to build the most powerful frigates possible. Any ship with two decks and 50+ cannons were, per definition, ships-of-the-line, so they built single-deck ships with 44 cannons (don't ask me why they didn't put on 48 guns, but I'm sure there was a reason, either practical or political). The scantlings, OTOH, wasn't part of any definition, so they made them the thickness of a SOL's.

IMTU, classification (or labels) refer to a vessel's mission(s), just as in the real world. Of course the mission(s) associated with a given classification can change over time, again just like the real world.

Indeed. Once 50-gun two-deckers were the mainstay of the Line, but by the time of the Napoleonic wars, they were really too weak to stand in the line against 64s and 74s. However, they weren't reclassified; they just weren't built any more.

BTW, while classifying ships by mission makes sense, there are other schemes, including classifying them by size. Age of Sail warships are a perfect example of that. Captains were paid according to the number of cannons on their ship, so ships were classified according to the number of cannon they carried, which, of course, had a very strong correlation to their size. So 1st to 4th rates were Ships-of-the-Line, 5th and 6th rates were frigates (SOLs and frigates both being post captains' commands), the next smaller sizes were sloops (commanders' commands), and the next smaller were brigs (lieutenants' commands).

I really don't see the problem with the classification scheme set forth in Fighting Ships, even if it is size-based (well, not entirely size-based; see below). A cruiser is a ship big enough to carry a spinal mount, but too small to fight battleships. Escorts are biggish ships without spinal mounts, etc. The biggest escort is around 5,000 T, not because you can't build a bigger ship without a spinal, but because it usually isn't done (I believe there were some 10,000 T escorts mentioned in FSotSI). The biggest cruiser we know of is 75,000 T and the smallest battleship is 200,000 T. Could there have been a time when the biggest cruiser was 40,000 T and the smallest battleship was 100,000 T? I think it's very likely (if one ignores the inconvenient fact that the ships of Milieu 0 appear to be practically indentical to ships in the Classic Era ).


Hans

 

[stealth]

The Death Skull 99

At TL-15 it is possible to create a fighter capable of engaging capital ships and defeating them under High Guard/ TCS rules.

99 ton planetoid rock fighter (the Death Skull 99)

Percentage based components:

20% Planetoid hull
16% Armour f-15 (total 18 due to configuration)
17% MD-6
12% PP-6, fuel-6 for agility 6
---
65%

Tonnage based components:

11 Model-8
18 +9 power plant, +9 tons fuel for computer (total PP-15)
1 missle turret
3 Magazine
1 Crew stations
---
34 tons

Total: 99 tons.

The result: a 99 ton rock fighter with level 18 armour which cannot be critically hit except by spinal mount weapons. Factor 9 bay weapons have no effect, although very lucky hits from nuke bays will slowly scrub it's weapons if an entire light cruiser fires on one. And that means 3 turns of repair in reserve on it's config-7 carrier.

It can fight for 36 turns without running out of ammo or life support and needing to dock.

A group of 10 has the equivalent of a factor-7 nuclear missle battery with a model 7 computer (because it has no bridge), but still that is nothing to sneeze at.

Use them as a screen, so that that you can repair the spinal mounts on your cruisers as your take them in and out of battle.

 

[Whipsnade]

But they did approve the building of ten frigates and didn't put a cost limit on that.

Hans,

Those shenanigans are child's play compared to what the USN did in the 1880s with monies Congress has appropriated for "rebuilding" the five Civil War era monitors, Puritan and the four vessels of the Miantonomoh-class.

The work in those five cases consisted of removing everything under the ship's name plate and then "rebuilding" an entirely new ship in place of the one that had been "removed"!

Real world oddities like this and the others mentioned in the last few posts are what can make a navy in a fictional setting seem more realistic. Rather than just crank out some bland, X Always Means Y, ship list that will have your players yawning, a GM would do well to "pepper" their fleet with a few outliers and oddities. Slap a strange name on a stranger hull, have a couple cruisers bigger than your dreadnoughts, make that lowly "gunboat" something truly dangerous, and have an obsolescent battlewagon working as an SDB tender.

Believe it or not, odd is actually more real!


Regards,
Bill

 

[Blue Ghost]

When I said I drew on various sci-fi milieus, I really meant "inspired" so to speak. I didn't dump a gerwalk, X-Wing, F-15, Gunstar, Viper and what have you into my Traveller fiction.

Rather I culminated all the various concepts I had read about, molded that with my personal concepts (which proved the bulk of my immaginings), and then codified it in fiction as best as I could.

It's essentially my stuff, but I wanted to see what other authors had done. As an example, originally the Banshee was based on Starfleetwars Terran Phantom fighter/strike-craft. Which itself is a modified BSG Viper, but with two sets of missiles, and a dorsal gun turret. I liked the concept of a turret gunner. Kind of like the US Navy WW2 torpedo bombers.

Instead of one, and instead of making it a lateral turret, I put three on, and made the the top/bottom turrets ball-in-socket gun emplacements. My strike craft is sleek, and doesn't borrow any geometry from any show. It remotely resembles Testor's imagined F117 before the pentagon declassified it to the public.

Trust me, it's unique.

The only problem was the fiction I submitted. I actually pride myself on good fighter-pilot fic. I learned from greats like Mack Maloney and William H. Keith (a.k.a. Keith Douglass), but put the style in space. I wasn't happy with what I had submitted to MJD, and he rightfully said it didn't hang well together. I sent him another draft, but truth be told I'm not happy with that one either.

Fear not. There's a method to the madness.

Other fighters; truly, the only official fighters I've ever really heard about in CT were an early version of the Rampart and a couple of FASA publications from the ship packs. I think one was a Zho fighter... not really sure.

Our group was primarily a quasi-mercenary-rescue team that was on the lam after escaping from "Prison Planet". Their forte was toating guns rather than dogfighting in space. We had a few scrapes in space, but nothing that invoked fighter activity. It was more or less fend off the pirates or engage the wayward Zhodani strike team. Stuff like that.

 

[Whipsnade]

(big snip of intriguing description) It remotely resembles Testor's imagined F117 before the pentagon declassified it to the public.

Blue Ghost,

So it's pretty and has ground-attack capabilities. How does it move in space?

Trust me, it's unique.

I'm sure it is. How does it move in space?

Fear not. There's a method to the madness.

I won't and I'm sure. How does it move in space?

Other fighters; truly, the only official fighters I've ever really heard about in CT were an early version of the Rampart and a couple of FASA publications from the ship packs. I think one was a Zho fighter... not really sure.

CT's various designs are scattered throughout the Adventures and other publications like SMC. FASA's designs have been decanonized. As for your design, how does it move through space?

Their forte was toating guns rather than dogfighting in space.

Dogfighting? Oh my...

Well, I guess we'll have to wait until it's published...


Regards,
Bill

 

[Blue Ghost]

Whipsnade; one final thing, rest assured my space fighters aren't "carving up space" like a contemporary jet fighter ACM scenario. It's correctional burns and grav drives where applicable. No Star Wars stuff

 

[Whipsnade]

Whipsnade; one final thing, rest assured my space fighters aren't "carving up space" like a contemporary jet fighter ACM scenario. It's correctional burns and grav drives where applicable. No Star Wars stuff

Blue Ghost,

Thank you. You've done a gray-headed old fat man's heart a world of good.


Regards,
Bill

 

[stealth]

Guys, lets talk talk frontier forces.

You can make a dispersed structure, TL-12, thats MD-3, Jump-3, PP-3, and it will be like a US Navy San Antonio class assault carrier (the kind that carries hovercraft and and helicopters). And even with marines, commandos, cargo, scientists, doctors, and spies, you can still get about 40% of it's mass for carried ships.

The San Antonio is in the same tonnage class, about 18,000 tons, as a WW2 nazi pocket battleship. That leaves you about 7,000 tons for rock fighters, aerospace vehicles, specialty craft, SDB's, or whatever the Emperor wants to put on it.

But more importantly, it's a *diplomatic ship*. Use it to rescue your nobles and other important personel from embassasies when the going get's tough. Use it to support mercenary operations.

It is ubiquitous. It is easily overhauled. It is modifiable.

And it is supportable on the frontier.

 

[tbeard1999]

Hans,

Those shenanigans are child's play compared to what the USN did in the 1880s with monies Congress has appropriated for "rebuilding" the five Civil War era monitors, Puritan and the four vessels of the Miantonomoh-class.

The work in those five cases consisted of removing everything under the ship's name plate and then "rebuilding" an entirely new ship in place of the one that had been "removed"!

Happened in the 1850s as well with USS Constellation. Same scenario -- "rebuild" the old ship by replacing it with a new one. Thus, the ship preserved in Baltimore is *not* the original Constellation, but rather an 1850s era sailing sloop.

Real world oddities like this and the others mentioned in the last few posts are what can make a navy in a fictional setting seem more realistic. Rather than just crank out some bland, X Always Means Y, ship list that will have your players yawning, a GM would do well to "pepper" their fleet with a few outliers and oddities. Slap a strange name on a stranger hull, have a couple cruisers bigger than your dreadnoughts, make that lowly "gunboat" something truly dangerous, and have an obsolescent battlewagon working as an SDB tender.

Believe it or not, odd is actually more real!

Yup. My Commonwealth Starships thread has a fair amount of that. For instance:

The Shoho class patrol carrier was originally designated as an escort carrier. When the Commonwealth fleet began transition to Jump-4 capable ships, large numbers of Shohos became redundant. The Commonwealth government transferred many of them to client states, reserve fleets and Colonial fleets (designated Frontier Escort Carriers). The Navy uses the remainder as patrol ships. The carrier fighter wing makes them quite effective in this role, as they can patrol the same area of space as 4+ ANZAC class corvettes.

Shohos typically carry the obsolete F-31 Starfire fighter or rarely, the upgraded F-31S Starfire. Due to a design oversight, their launch bays are too narrow to accomodate the F-52 Hellcat. ...

...

The San Pablo "class" gunboats began life as Type RS Subsidized Liners. Originally operated by the Gold Star Line, they were sold to the Isran Republic several years before the Outrim Rebellion and used as passenger ships. When the rebellion began, the Israni government began equipping them as privateers at Venturi starport. Retreating Israni forces failed to destroy the ships and the Commonwealth Marines captured them intact. Desperately short of ships, Vice Admiral Hosegaya commissioned them into service.

After the rebellion was over, they were renamed and transferred to the so-called "Rim Fleet" where they currently serve as gunboats in backward systems as part of Patrol Squadron 12. After being transferred, all 4 ships had their original Manuever-C drives replaced with more powerful J-models cannibalized from scapped Brutus class bulk carriers. All four ships had 3 additional tons of fire control added and 3 additional hardpoints mounted. Several had their weaponry upgraded.

The gunboats of Patrol Squadron 12 all have at least a dozen "civilian technicians" -- unofficial crewmembers from local backward worlds. These civilian technicians do most of the routine work, freeing the crew to practice battle drills. These ships do a fair amount of fighting, as the backwards Rim systems are plagued by pirates, warlords and the like. Like many Rim Fleet ships, none of the gunboats carry marines (marine spit and polish is incompatible with the norm in the Rim Fleet). The fighting is done by Naval personnel.

Of course, given that these gunboats are 50+ years old, a lot of work is necessary just to keep them in space. Despite this, few spacemen choose to transfer out of the gunboats. Life is extremely good for them -- each has a private stateroom, for example.

Commonwealth Navy admirals just look the other way -- a common practice when the esoteric habits of the Rim Fleet are involved.


...

Over a century old, IMS Reliant and her sister ship, IMS Retribution are among the oldest ships in Commonwealth naval service. They began life as Audacious class light carriers and have been modified for service with the Rim Squadron. Orginally, they carried 48 fighters, but now only carry 24. The excess space was converted to fuel storage to allow Reliant and Retribution to make 2 consecutive Jump-1s.

The ships' anti-ship ordinance is old and unrealiable -- missiles and sand canisters have a 50% chance of failure when used. The obsolete Lucasarms Mk2 fire control systems are also cranky and subject to crashes and short circuits. At any given time, about half the ship's turrets are "on the blink" and unusable.

The fighter wing has a high serviceability level; equivalent to line carrier squadrons. Most ordinance carried is for ground attack missions; only 12 fighters have lasers. The remainder have VRF gauss guns. each ship carries a very limited amount of anti-ship ordinance. Most of it is old and subject to the same 50% failure rate as ship missiles and sancasters.

Each ship carries about 40 "civilian technicians" -- unofficial crewmembers from local backward worlds [that] do most of the routine work... These ships do a fair amount of fighting, as the backwards Rim systems are plagued by pirates, warlords and the like. Like many Rim Fleet ships, ...fighting is done by Naval personnel (*not* by the civilian contractors). On a few occasions, captains have hired small mercenary contingents to supplement their ships crews. The Navy frowns on this, so the captains seldom mention the mercenaries in official dispatches.

Due to the difficulty of getting voluntary transferees. the fighter squadrons contain buth Marine and Navy pilots. These carriers are the only ones to carry blended squadrons.

These ancient ships require a lot of work just to keep them in space. Despite this, few Rim Spacers choose to transfer.

These ships patrol the backwater systems of the Rim. They carry out a wide variety of missions -- convoy escort, anti-piracy, gunboat diplomacy, support for marine landings, etc.


However, I do not agree that it's a bad idea to have standard designations (light fighter, heavy fighter, etc.). I think that evocative (and accurately descriptive) designations help the players immerse themselves in the campaign. They're also logical...while a "fighter" might get larger over the course of 50 years, at any given time, the term describes a fairly narrow range of craft. Of course, in a campaign with lots of old hardware, you can add interesting "replacement" designators. For a Real World example, the late 1800s were a period of rapid naval technological development. The US Navy would often re-rate older battleships, calling them "armored cruisers" or "second class battleships".