Fighters other than the Rampart

[Blue Ghost]

I'm not a big High Guard type. Sorry about that. So forgive me if this question has an obvious answer, or is unanswerable.

The only space fighter I ever see in Traveller are the Rampart and Solomani equivalent thereof. I figure other government throughout the Imperuim and outside of it have their own designs and variants, but you never see a design other than a single seat fighter with a pulse laser in its nose with 6g accel.

Am I right in assuming that there's no wiggle room in Traveller for other fighter designs that have slightly variant capabilities?

 

[The Oz]

There are other fighter designs in Traveller. There's the 10-ton fighter from the Traveller Book, and the 50-ton Sylea-class fighter from Supplement 9.

The trick to having more than one weapon on a fighter is to have a gunner as well as a pilot.

 

[far-trader]

There is a lot of wiggle room.

Trillion Credit Squadron has the 8.5ton Gnat as an example.

Some Zhodani source has a (iirc) 6ton fighter (or it might be bigger, 8tons? and 6tons was my smallest design)

Most are in the 10ton range for convenience of fitting across several carriers/launch tubes. But there are 9ton examples in the HG1, and 15ton, 20ton, and 50ton examples elsewhere. I seem to even recall a 25ton fighter.

 

[hdan]

If you are willing to step out of CT and consider Mongoose sources, there are plenty of other fighter designs.

Though I still don't think I accept the idea of a fighter that has enough armor to completely shrug off most hits from pulse and beam lasers....

 

[Matt123]

Most published fighter designs in most editions, will not stand up in fleet battles due to the lack of computer processing grunt. To be competitive they must have the maximum computer available for their tech. For the (HG designed) TL15 Rampart that would be computer 9, weighing 13 ton and needing 12 EP to power it. Anything less than that, especially fighters under 30 ton, and its 'only' suited for (all still very important fighter functions) patrolling, customs, pickets and pirate chasing.

The difference in computer size acts as a modifier in your defense and as a to hit modifier. Meaning if your fighter computer is underpowered compared to your opponent, you are easily hit and struggle to hit anything in return. Computer size is more important than agility which only affects your defense.

Pirates, smugglers, commerce etc generally only have up to computer-3, maybe 4. Zhodani/Solomani fleets have computer-8.

 

[sabredog]

The Solomani fixed-weapons rule allows you to add a number of fixed forward weapons means you could add two beams (or whatever), but you'd need a gunner. I think the whole key to having greater diversity in fighter design lies in 3 things:

1) Make them bigger (mine range from 6-50 tons)
2) Make them matter in combat, which generally means...
3) Toss the HG rules for fighters out the window and come up with your own.

Otherwise even the Rampart pointless in serious battles when you can do better with things like a cutter or pinnace loaded with missile racks and lasers.

IMTU fighters can carry missile rails in addition to up to 2 lasers. For every 10 tons over that they get 2 missile rails. Each rail carries one standard LBB1-type missile. Fighters can fire those one at a time or the lasers at a single target in one combat round if the fighter has only a pilot.

If a gunner is present then the pilot gets to fire the lasers each round while the gunner launches missiles one at a time at a single (but it could be different) target.

If a computer Model 1 is on board then the gunner can salvo launch any number of missiles at a single target in a round.

If a Model 2 computer is on board then the gunner can launch any number of missiles off the rails at up to 2 different targets in a single round.

If a gunner is present (to handle the missiles) fighters always get the pilot's skill level as a defensive DM to be hit, while they get the same as a positive DM to hit a target with the lasers. Without a gunner to share the load the defensive DM is the same, but the to hit DM for the lasers is halved.

They may sound awfully powerful, but once the missiles are off the rails the fighter is down to the lasers. And tactical doctrine in Naval ship design dictates that plenty of beam laser turrets are available for small craft and anti-missile defense, so in addition to all the enemy fighters they might be facing there's an awful lot of lasers waving around trying to kill them, too.

 

[JustinInOz]

I know I am opening things up here and that this is not the first time this has been said. What makes a fighter different than a ship? Is it only size? Is it jump capability? Is it endurance? Is it number of crew?

As I see it, having less endurance and no jump capability are what make fighters different from other ships. They are designed to be "lived in" for less than 8 hours or so. 16 hours at a stretch. They don't have any space allocated to living or life support. They have limited fuel. They are not jump capable; no jump drives, no jump fuel. They carry no cargo other than their weapons payload.

These sacrifices allow the ship to outperform other similar size. They are faster, more agile and punch harder. Otherwise they are just like any other ship.

From this, a battle rider is a very large fighter. An SDB is a kind of fighter, a monitor is a fighter.

I think I read the following on the Atomic Rocket website. The terrestial difference between a fighter and the aircraft carrier that supports it is huge. One flies and the other sails. They operate in two completely different mediums, water and air. This gives rise to huge differences in performance and capabilities. This difference does not exist in space. The two classes of vessel are not analogous. In space, both operate in the same medium. They are constrained by the same "rules"

The differences arise from what I have outlined above. The fighter has more space to allocate to weapons and maneuver. This leads to a greater performance than the ship which is also a jump capable platform that people have to live in. From this, a battle rider is just a very big fighter with a spinal mount.

 

[HG_B]

but you never see a design other than a single seat fighter with a pulse laser in its nose with 6g accel.

Am I right in assuming that there's no wiggle room in Traveller for other fighter designs that have slightly variant capabilities?

In Mongoose Trav (High Guard) you can make fighters that are MUCH faster. Also, better weapons than you mention.

 

[sabredog]

I know I am opening things up here and that this is not the first time this has been said. What makes a fighter different than a ship? Is it only size? Is it jump capability? Is it endurance? Is it number of crew?

Yes, all of the above and....

These sacrifices allow the ship to outperform other similar size. They are faster, more agile and punch harder. Otherwise they are just like any other ship.

Which is why there ought to be special rules to allow for fighters to act like fighters. Like allow for the pilot's skills to give it positive and negative DM's without the need for a computer. Ship-killer "torpedoes" (like a hardened penetrator-type nuke missile or something that requires precise and close launching to work) or some weapon equivalent to the bay-sized missiles (which have just got to be bigger than the turret ones) to fire.

I think I read the following on the Atomic Rocket website. The terrestial difference between a fighter and the aircraft carrier that supports it is huge. One flies and the other sails. They operate in two completely different mediums, water and air. This gives rise to huge differences in performance and capabilities. This difference does not exist in space. The two classes of vessel are not analogous. In space, both operate in the same medium. They are constrained by the same "rules"

You forgot something very important here: all of what you say is true except that a single fighter can carry a nuclear missile (or two) that can either neutralize or destroy a carrier. In fact, the fighter doesn't even have to have a nuclear missile to do this; a Kedge, Tomahawk, Harpoon, or Exocet could do it, too depending on the size of the ship. My point is that there is nothing in Traveller HG to make fighters able to carry ship-killing weapons (except when used against little unarmored ships) which is a glaring omission.

The differences arise from what I have outlined above. The fighter has more space to allocate to weapons and maneuver. This leads to a greater performance than the ship which is also a jump capable platform that people have to live in. From this, a battle rider is just a very big fighter with a spinal mount.

This is merely semantics here. You can call anything you want to a fighter, but to be classified as such doesn't make it so if your premise that it should gain some sort of benefits from size, maneuverability, and ability to carry heavy weapons applies. Otherwise, sure, I guess you could build a 50,000 ton "fighter".

 

[Icosahedron]

When I first got CTHG, I made a lot of different fighters, though as someone mentioned above, if the design isn't optimal it's going to lose battles regularly. I discovered this over time. However, as was also mentioned, armed small craft can be used for a variety of patrol and interception roles, they don't all have to be line-of-battle capable.

I quickly discovered that the smallest vessel you could design was a 4.5 dT unarmed trainer (though I did houserule smaller vessels with no computer).
I also devised a 5dT unarmed dinghy with a variety of options including 1seat plus cargo, 2 seat, and an ELB version that doubled as a single-seater captain's gig or a 4-berth escape pod.

The smallest armed ship I designed was a 6dT missile-armed 'MTB'.
Thereafter, I produced 7dT 'midges', 8dT tandems wirh a gunner seat, 10dT fighters with better weapons and computer, and my standard was a 20dT fighter that had a number of options including a PAW barbette!

I designed everything around standard hull sizes, the 10dT wedge hull being ubiquitous IMTU, offering roles from fighter to launch, to lifeboat, to orbital patrol...

So there's plenty of choice. Personally I house rule a lot which makes fighters more interesting and effective - I quickly introduced a rule that allowed fighters to form flights, squadrons and wings that could act as batteries, for example.

It's your universe, make it as boring as you want.

 

[sabredog]

The smallest armed ship I designed was a 6dT missile-armed 'MTB'.

So did I! The MF-1 "Mosquito" was what I called it. Yeah, that's about as small as I could get them to go, but currently I have about 6 basic designs that average around 20-30 tons. I figure those are my "Tomcats" n' "Eagles" and the 6-15 tonners are the F-16's.

So there's plenty of choice. Personally I house rule a lot which makes fighters more interesting and effective - I quickly introduced a rule that allowed fighters to form flights, squadrons and wings that could act as batteries, for example.

It's your universe, make it as boring as you want.

Great minds think alike: I never can figure out why people are so opposed to the roving battery model of fighters in HG - it's about the only way to effectively use them at all without doing too much fudging.

My house-rule requires a second bridge and computer (equal in size to the number of flights it will control so a Model 5 can control 5 flights at once) on the carrier dedicated to flight control and coordinating the strikes. If there is a command and control ship in the fleet at the time it can take over the same operation if the carrier loses it's "Flight Bridge" (which BTW can't function as a second emergency or battle bridge of the main bridge is destroyed so carriers - as my game's flagships actually have 3 bridges - Main/Emergency Battle/Flight).

And as fighters get shot away in the battle the "battery" is reduced just like on a ship.

So how do you do it?

 

[AndreaV]

You forgot something very important here: all of what you say is true except that a single fighter can carry a nuclear missile (or two) that can either neutralize or destroy a carrier. In fact, the fighter doesn't even have to have a nuclear missile to do this; a Kedge, Tomahawk, Harpoon, or Exocet could do it, too depending on the size of the ship. My point is that there is nothing in Traveller HG to make fighters able to carry ship-killing weapons (except when used against little unarmored ships) which is a glaring omission.

Errrr, one has to ask why is this a glaring omission? Speaking realistically (well as realistically as one can with HG) there is no fighter sized ship killing weapon because you can't really build one. Any missile that relies on contacting the ship (ie a conventional nuke) is going to be dealt with by point defenses easily given the likely ranges. KK missiles and nuclear pumped lasers are good, but would have to be truly massive to get single hit kill potential. Which leaves us with various beam weapons which are all too power hungry.

Heck, even in real world navies, the only reason for the carriers supremacy over the battleship is range. This does not exist in Traveller.

Despite its space opera heritage, Traveller has never had space opera fighters al la Starwars or BSG. Fighters role is in the patrol, picket and anti-piracy fields. Which are probably far more fertile fields for roleplaying than Top Gun in space.

 

[mike wightman]

Stop thinking of space fighters in Traveller as aircraft today - the better paradigm to use is that fighters are like MTBs.

 

[warwizard]

You forgot something very important here: all of what you say is true except that a single fighter can carry a nuclear missile (or two) that can either neutralize or destroy a carrier. In fact, the fighter doesn't even have to have a nuclear missile to do this; a Kedge, Tomahawk, Harpoon, or Exocet could do it, too depending on the size of the ship. My point is that there is nothing in Traveller HG to make fighters able to carry ship-killing weapons (except when used against little unarmored ships) which is a glaring omission.
QUOTE]

If we step away from CT Book 2 and Book 5 and look at brilliant lances and FF&S many more things become possiable:
Robot brain fighters with the "pilot" having direct control of the maneuvering thrusters and mdrives and a second "gunner" robot simularilly linked to sensors and weapons, no couches, no control panels, no life support, endurance equal to mdrive or power plant endurance, much much higher accelerations. See my thread on missiles. My vision of space combat is that the one that cant be seen by the other guy gets to shoot first, or even better does not shoot, but instead has a master fire director and provides terminal guidance for a flock of missiles launched from 30 LS away by the big guys. I've designed such drones as small as 2.5 cubic meters, (compared to a "standard" missile of 7 cubic meters)
A current day example would be a small drone with a laser designator loitering over a battlefield, transparent and non radar reflective, it's nearly impossiable to spot and completely impossiable to target, and it provides terminal guidance for a missile or lazer guided bomb launched from over the horizon.

So you have a mission for a fighter drone killer to go out and get real close and personal with the enemie's drones and knock them out or just target lock them and hand off the locks to the big boys. A game of cat and mouse if you will, the drones trying to stay un targeted while the fighters, once they get close enough , trying to swat them, Meanwhile the ship killers are on their way with 53 KT worth of KE per missile and there are LOTS of missiles (14 of them per Displacement ton). Each side is trying to do the same to the other.

Given this vision, a fighter is not intended to attack the big boys, and does not need the big computer support, just a top of the line sensor suite and enough delta V to go out play tag for an hour or two and come back. Another fighter mission is to target lock and shoot down incomming missiles.

 

[sabredog]

Errrr, one has to ask why is this a glaring omission? Speaking realistically (well as realistically as one can with HG) there is no fighter sized ship killing weapon because you can't really build one.

Errrr, this is exactly the glaring omission....and you ought to be able to build one somehow. It wouldn't be unreasonable, nor unrealistic - just require as much imagination as it took to come up with the goofy Black Globe and (well, more theoretically feasible but still needs a lot of "ifs") meson gun).

And then there's the RPG thing...we are talking about what is still and RPG, right?......

Heck, even in real world navies, the only reason for the carriers supremacy over the battleship is range. This does not exist in Traveller.

Power projection is the more correct rationale behind carriers as strategic weapons, not range - which can be just as easily accomplished with cruise missiles, ICBMs (yes, those can carry weapons other than nukes, too), and space-based weaponry.

For that matter carriers are actually highly vulnerable because they are big, juicy targets and are vulnerable to all those things I just mentioned including a few more I didn't - that's why carrier groups surround the things.

But the power projection capability of parking a carrier just over the horizon of an misbehaving country loaded to the gunwales with more planes than said country probably has - not to mention nuclear weapons - is the reason why we have carriers.

You can't bomb the crap out of the enemy and support your landing troops from a battleship now anymore than it really worked in WW2 - you need aircraft for air superiority to allow for close support for landing troops, and for the sort precision bombing that can decapitate the latest weekend government that is this week's pain in the world's rear.

Despite its space opera heritage, Traveller has never had space opera fighters al la Starwars or BSG. Fighters role is in the patrol, picket and anti-piracy fields. Which are probably far more fertile fields for roleplaying than Top Gun in space.

Glad to hear we are still talking about an RPG, whew! While Traveller per se (in the original three books) never had fighters, Mayday did...and when HG came out fighters where addressed in the design rules. Oh wait..the second addition of LBB2 has a fighter in it, too. Hmmmm, right on page 18.

And BTW, there's nothing wrong with the game's roots in Space Opera...it has laser rifles, fusion guns, battledress, and talking dog aliens but fighters seem to be such a contentious issue. Why is that?

Now I wans't in the NAvy, but I spent a few years in West Germany in the security forces doing things like guarding nuclear armed planes and practicing hunting and killing Spetsnaz infiltrators and terrorists. So I may not have been a pilot but I did pick up the fact that what a lot of our fighters did (and I have since learned the same thing happens in the Navy) was in fact picket duty (fleet interdiction against incoming cruise missiles and enemy fighters), patrol (oh, LOTS of patrol and I even got a backseat ride on one of those in a Tornado), and "anti-piracy" (the modern Naval version would be anti-smuggling interdiction and such).

So fighters current and in the far future do the same things - but today they can carry ship (and city) killing weapons and in the far future they can't? What the heck?

The geniuses who come up with jump drive can't design a ship killing missile (albeit maybe a really big one that a large fighter can only carry one of) that if a daring pilot and his/her trusty GIB (or DIG for a Vargr backseater) can get close enough to a capital ship could shoot that sucker into a weapons bay or some such weak spot and at least cause a few internal critical hits? Not vaporize the whole ship, but at least put it out of action or do more than scuff the paint?

Or would that be too much space opera role-playing in a sci-fi RPG with giant space-going starfish and xenophobic centaur vegans with ray guns?

 

[sabredog]

If we step away from CT Book 2 and Book 5 and look at brilliant lances and FF&S many more things become possiable:
Robot brain fighters with the "pilot" having direct control of the maneuvering thrusters and mdrives and a second "gunner" robot simularilly linked to sensors and weapons, no couches, no control panels, no life support, endurance equal to mdrive or power plant endurance, much much higher accelerations. See my thread on missiles. My vision of space combat is that the one that cant be seen by the other guy gets to shoot first, or even better does not shoot, but instead has a master fire director and provides terminal guidance for a flock of missiles launched from 30 LS away by the big guys. I've designed such drones as small as 2.5 cubic meters, (compared to a "standard" missile of 7 cubic meters)
A current day example would be a small drone with a laser designator loitering over a battlefield, transparent and non radar reflective, it's nearly impossiable to spot and completely impossiable to target, and it provides terminal guidance for a missile or lazer guided bomb launched from over the horizon.

So you have a mission for a fighter drone killer to go out and get real close and personal with the enemie's drones and knock them out or just target lock them and hand off the locks to the big boys. A game of cat and mouse if you will, the drones trying to stay un targeted while the fighters, once they get close enough , trying to swat them, Meanwhile the ship killers are on their way with 53 KT worth of KE per missile and there are LOTS of missiles (14 of them per Displacement ton). Each side is trying to do the same to the other.

Given this vision, a fighter is not intended to attack the big boys, and does not need the big computer support, just a top of the line sensor suite and enough delta V to go out play tag for an hour or two and come back. Another fighter mission is to target lock and shoot down incomming missiles.

I think it can logically be argued that the combat tables already do that since all your incoming missiles will have to go through the typical obstacles of laser fire, ECM, agility of the traget ship, sand, and nuke dampers (which turn all your nukes into KK missiles anyway).

I think your ideas have a lot going for them but maybe the idea of drones isn't going to be a successful in the future the same way as today because of the longer lead time for detecting and dealing with them in a space battle where the lines can be 10's of thousands of km apart?

But drones for ECM and anti-missile work are definitely doable and could be used by fighters, while Growler/Prowler type fighters (or ships) could mask incoming fighter/drone/ship groups until they get within firing range of the actual capital ships - not just lots of Battle of Britain type fighter duels which don't do all that much other than possibly reduce a fleet's anti-missile capabilities.

Here is one such example:

AE-85c Slybird TL-15

30 ton lifting body wedge

Maneuver Drive= 5G Acceleration (Agility 5)

Fuel = 2 tons Cargo = NA

Computer = Model 2 (CPU-3/ Storage-6)

Weapons = 4 “wing” rails & 2 belly rails

4 Crash Couches

Crew: Pilot
Navigator
Offensive Weapons Operator
Defensive Weapons Operator

The AE-85 Slybird is the current Imperial Navy front line electronic countermeasures and attack fighter. The craft is capable of both atmospheric and space flight with a combat range of 24 hours. The craft is “ruggedized” to increase crew survivability and reduce the immediate impact of damage to the craft’s vital systems. In effect, hits to the bridge (cockpit) or drive systems do not affect the performance of the craft until a second hit is made. Then damage is handled normally and the entire cockpit can be ejected as a single escape pod for the crew if a roll of 8+ on 2D6 is made in case of a catastrophic hit on the craft. The escape pod has a rescue beacon, survival kits for 4, and life support for up to 24 hours. If ejected near orbit or within atmosphere the pod will re-enter and parachute to the surface.

The mission of the Slybird is to screen attacking fighter forces as they approach a target and to perform “Wild Weasel” type missions to use special sensor-homing missiles to destroy enemy warning installations prior to a ground assault by drop or soft-landed troops. The missiles used are standard fire and forget types with target recognition seeker heads that cannot be spoofed by even shutting off the sensor once the missile has locked onto it since the guidance system uses image recognition for guidance in case of signal loss.

The Slybird can carry four standard missiles on its “wing” rails (two to a side), plus carry larger anti-sensor missiles or “Chase Me” drones on the larger rails mounted along its ventral surface. The drones are officially known as the EM-101 Badger but the slang name of “Chase Me” was a more apt description of how the drone works. When the Defensive Weapons Officer identifies and selects incoming missiles to decoy away from the craft (or its flight) he/she activates the drone which fires off at 6G acceleration while transmitting ID signals to lure away the incoming missiles. The operator can select up to 6 incoming missiles in the “kill box” the drone uses, and those missiles will follow the drone until they either catch and destroy it (usually with fratricide among any non-contacting missiles chasing it) or they run out of fuel. The Defensive Weapons Officer also operates the “Sorbitsya” ECM jamming pods which can be carried in lieu of the “Chase Me” drones on the same rails. Two pods are required to achieve the maximum front to rear efficiency and side lobe coverage. If the pods are not carried then the onboard Model 2 computer can be used to run the standard ECM program, but in such a case the protection will not be extended by the program to craft in formation with the Slybird.

When operating the pods function as the ECM computer program does, but they extend coverage beyond the craft carrying them to cover up to 6 other craft that are flying in close formation with the Slybird. “Close” formation is considered to be no farther than 1km radius from the Slybird. Within this radius all incoming missiles are destroyed on a roll of 10+ on 2D6 with the Computer or Electronics skill of the Defensive Weapons Officer acting as a positive DM.

The Offensive Weapons Operator can designate up to 4 separate targets for the offensive missiles carried by the craft. Since the craft is not officially, nor intended to be, a fighter these are usually used to carry the home-on-sensor missiles to destroy sensor arrays on capital ships and ground installations.

The loadout options for a Slybird are either up to 6 standard missiles; 4 missiles and two ECM pods or drones on the belly rails; or the “wing” rails can be replaced with one torpedo for two rails per torpedo.



Torpedoes

Torpedoes are the larger missiles typically uses by the heavy bay weapon emplacements on warships. They function the same way as any other standard missile, but carry a significantly larger warhead and have a greater range. Torpedoes cannot be used in turret launchers, but rails (frequently retractable or fixed) are sometimes used by ships by sacrificing a hardpoint for 2 rails.

A torpedo does 1D6 hits plus 1 critical hit when impacting a target. A nuclear armed torpedo does 3D6 hits plus 2 critical hits and a save must be made (10+ on 2D6) to avoid crashing the computer systems on unarmored craft.

The same defenses that can be used against standard missiles can be used against torpedoes, including evasion by the ship’s pilot. Because a torpedo travels at a greater speed than a standard missile it cannot maneuver as quickly as a smaller ship can; their primary targets are, after all, large capital ships. A pilot can, in any craft below 1000 tons and having a maneuver drive of at least 3G make a saving roll of 10+ on 2D6 using his/her pilot skill as a positive DM. Torpedoes that miss after a successful “dodge” will continue on their last course and self-destruct.



(BTW: the "sorbitsya" name I swiped from the pods used by current generation Russian fighters and carried on the wingtips in lieu of the usual missiles (the name translates to “absorption”). Instead the newer Sukhois carry these as a permanent installation and just added another rail under the wing to not lose firepower. Here I make them optional since that way they can be added to other craft if needed, though I also have cutter “Growler" modules that achieve the same thing and also carry 4 "Chase Me" drones. I get bored easily when I can't sleep and am taking my painkillers and valium, so use what you'd like and comments/ideas are welcome.)

 

[sabredog]

And what the Slybird could be screening might be something like this:


IF-9F Demon (Fleet Interdiction Fighter) 20 tons 6G/agility-6

2 Pulse Lasers / 4 Ordnance Hardpoints
1 Pilot / 1 Weapons Officer Requires 2 Groundcrew
The computer carried is equivalent to Model 2bis

The Demon is the newest front-line fighter in service with the Terran Empire. It is capable of using its missiles to track and engage up to 3 individual targets at one time and can carry a single torpedo instead of 4 missiles on a removable centerline rack.

The Demon’s deployment on carriers in the Rim Fleet is somewhat controversial because of the Treaty of Jagranath’s (IMTU) proscription against Imperial Main Fleet activity inside the rim outside special events such as goodwill tours and diplomatic missions. However, because the Demon is not jump-capable the issue is debatable for now. Critics have complained about the high degree of maintenance that the Demon requires, especially when that makes them seem too temperamental for the extended cruises on board Rim Fleet carriers.

Camerone-class Battlecarriers have all been retrofitted to carry the Demon at a direct exchange of 2 to 1 (Rapiers to Demons) since they already had launch tubes capable of accepting up to 30 ton fighter craft. For now the Intrepid-class Assault Carriers are keeping the Demon since the expense of refitting new tubes is prohibitive. Valiant-class Rim Fleet carriers are switching gradually to Demon, but even those that have still carry 10-ton Rapiers as a reserve.

For game operations the pilot's skill acts as a positive DM in attack with the lasers he controls, and as a defensive DM. The gunner controls the missiles or torpedo, but only the computer's model code acts as a positive DM for hitting with those.

 

[HG_B]

You forgot something very important here: all of what you say is true except that a single fighter can carry a nuclear missile (or two) that can either neutralize or destroy a carrier. In fact, the fighter doesn't even have to have a nuclear missile to do this; a Kedge, Tomahawk, Harpoon, or Exocet could do it, too depending on the size of the ship. My point is that there is nothing in Traveller HG to make fighters able to carry ship-killing weapons (except when used against little unarmored ships) which is a glaring omission.

Not at ALL an omission. Current day carriers aren't armoured. BTW, You aren't going to destroy or neutralize a Nimitz carrier with a a Kedge, Tomahawk, Harpoon, or Exocet. Not in your WILDEST dreams.

Trav ships of the line are MASSIVELY armoured. Fighters really have no role unless they could get close enough to place nuke on the hull. No way to do this without getting vaporized. Which is, realistically what would happen.

 

[Matt123]

The concept of fighter borne ship killing missiles in Traveller, falls apart when you ask the next question. Where are the ship borne, ship-killing missiles? If they don't exist (& obviously they don't), why should a 10 ton fighter get one?

What you are asking for, is a Meson-T in a fighter.

 

[AndreaV]

Power projection is the more correct rationale behind carriers as strategic weapons, not range - which can be just as easily accomplished with cruise missiles, ICBMs (yes, those can carry weapons other than nukes, too), and space-based weaponry.

For that matter carriers are actually highly vulnerable because they are big, juicy targets and are vulnerable to all those things I just mentioned including a few more I didn't - that's why carrier groups surround the things.

But the power projection capability of parking a carrier just over the horizon of an misbehaving country loaded to the gunwales with more planes than said country probably has - not to mention nuclear weapons - is the reason why we have carriers.

Nope its range. There is no weapon that an aircraft can carry that a ship the size of a carrier can't carry more of and fire faster; and be more survivable while doing so to boot. The only advantage the carrier has is that the aircraft considerably extend the weapon systems range. The whole reason for carriers is they are able to add range to your weapon system. They allow the ship to fire without exposing itself to return fire. That is why we have carriers and not uber missile cruisers.

You can't bomb the crap out of the enemy and support your landing troops from a battleship now anymore than it really worked in WW2 - you need aircraft for air superiority to allow for close support for landing troops, and for the sort precision bombing that can decapitate the latest weekend government that is this week's pain in the world's rear.

Actually the humble old shipborne gun is considerably better for supporting a landing than any carrier ever can be. Far faster reaction times, able to deliver more payload over a shorter time, way way faster reload time. Its why we still have them on ships, why the Iowas lasted so long.

Glad to hear we are still talking about an RPG, whew! While Traveller per se (in the original three books) never had fighters, Mayday did...and when HG came out fighters where addressed in the design rules. Oh wait..the second addition of LBB2 has a fighter in it, too. Hmmmm, right on page 18.

Yep always had fighters, they've always had a role, just not killing battleships. Don't like it, your universe is your own for a reason There's much I don't like in the OTU, so IMTU its not there.

And BTW, there's nothing wrong with the game's roots in Space Opera...it has laser rifles, fusion guns, battledress, and talking dog aliens but fighters seem to be such a contentious issue. Why is that?

Now I wans't in the NAvy, but I spent a few years in West Germany in the security forces doing things like guarding nuclear armed planes and practicing hunting and killing Spetsnaz infiltrators and terrorists. So I may not have been a pilot but I did pick up the fact that what a lot of our fighters did (and I have since learned the same thing happens in the Navy) was in fact picket duty (fleet interdiction against incoming cruise missiles and enemy fighters), patrol (oh, LOTS of patrol and I even got a backseat ride on one of those in a Tornado), and "anti-piracy" (the modern Naval version would be anti-smuggling interdiction and such).

So fighters current and in the far future do the same things - but today they can carry ship (and city) killing weapons and in the far future they can't? What the heck?

Nope they don't carry a ship killing missile, because they don't exist in the OTU. Like them and want them, add them to your universe, more power to you. Write it as a variant and submit it to JTAS; I'll cheer you on. But the OTU has never had them. And adding them will result in a considerable change to the setting. What you want is a T meson in a can, something that will make just about everything written about Traveller navies obsolete.