Fighters/PT Boats in the Traveller Universe

[mike wightman]

Not really applicable to space warfare in Traveller though.

Space fighters are no faster than capital ships, space weapons at TL9+ are a lot more accurate than WWII weapons.

 

[whulorigan]

Not really applicable to space warfare in Traveller though.

Space fighters are no faster than capital ships, ...

Agreed.

Reasons that the modern analogy to Surface Wet Navy Warships and Air Superiority Fighters don't work with Traveller Space Forces include:

1. Air Superiority Fighters can easily fly at approximately 10x the cruising speed of a Wet Navy Warship.
2. Air Superiority Fighters have an additional dimension of maneuverability (3-D) relative to their Wet Navy Warship adversary (2-D), and can "get above" their adversary at an advantageous offensive/defensive position of their own choosing.

Traveller Space Forces small craft have the same dimensional environment (3-D), and comparable Newtonian accelerations (or maybe 1.5-2.0x at best, depending on your ruleset) as Capital Warships and their Support Vessels. This makes Traveller Space Forces small craft much more analogous to historical Gunboats and Torpedo Boats. What gave their Wet Navy equivalents a significance in Surface Warfare was their ability to carry and deliver a weapon package (a torpedo) that had the destructive power to significantly damage a warship, and do so with just enough excess speed to get in, deliver it, and get back out again if you planned it right (or alternatively, to use stealth in the case of submarines).

If WWII and modern Wet Navy Warships had the ability to rise up out of the water and fly thru the air and chase down enemy fighters at comparable subsonic/supersonic speeds, then you would have a comparable analogy to Space Forces.

 

[whulorigan]

@chipla makes a very good point about the COAC role of fighters, which would still be a major role for them at high TLs where they are no longer as viable in a ship attack role. The major space combat roles for them at higher TLs would be acting as an extended sensor net for the fleet, as a screen against incoming missiles (and possibly enemy fighters) and as a missile barrage platform which can launch from a closer range than you would want the capital ships to be at.

That is my primary view of "Fighters", namely "Aerospace Fighters" in service with COACC to support Army operations, and as support to Imperial Marines (whether Navy Pilots assigned as support to Planetary Assault Forces, or native Marine Pilots).

"Fleet" Pilots would primarily be your Perimeter Pickets and Forward Recon Scouts, and/or Forward Combat Observers/Sensor-Resolution Relays & Guidance, and Point-Defense/Interceptors.

"Larger" Small craft could be employed as gunboats or torpedo boats if they can carry and deploy a weapon system that can actually do meaningful damage, or at least get in close enough to precision target key systems like targeting or comms arrays to effectively take enemy combatants out of action pending repairs.

 

[McPerth]

Space fighters are no faster than capital ships,

That's version dependent again... In MgT a light Fighter may have up to maneuver 12...

space weapons at TL9+ are a lot more accurate than WWII weapons.

That works two way...

 

[AnotherDilbert]

That's version dependent again... In MgT a light Fighter may have up to maneuver 12...

And then you add a High Burn Thruster...

 

[mike wightman]

That's version dependent again... In MgT a light Fighter may have up to maneuver 12...

And so can a capital ship, you can add reaction engines to them. Even if the fighter is 12g and the capital ship only 6g that isn't enough to make up for the capital having ten times the detection range and weapons that instakill the fighter,

That works two way...

Except the capital ship has a 100t weapon system, while the fighter maxes out at 99t for weapons, armour, drives, sensors, computer etc.

The fighter is dead long before it can get into range of its own sensors, and its weapons barely have any effect on a properly designed capital.

 

[kilemall]

And so can a capital ship, you can add reaction engines to them. Even if the fighter is 12g and the capital ship only 6g that isn't enough to make up for the capital having ten times the detection range and weapons that instakill the fighter,

Except the capital ship has a 100t weapon system, while the fighter maxes out at 99t for weapons, armour, drives, sensors, computer etc.

The fighter is dead long before it can get into range of its own sensors, and its weapons barely have any effect on a properly designed capital.

Ummmm…. If you choose to make the system do that.

A Star Wars ‘naval sim’ has to have fighter lethality since its subject matter does. Perhaps special rules but they can.

 

[McPerth]

The fighter is dead long before it can get into range of its own sensors, and its weapons barely have any effect on a properly designed capital.

Again, fully version dependent. Im MgT1E fighters pose more than a decent threat to Capital Ships

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Again, fully version dependent. Im MgT1E fighters pose more than a decent threat to Capital Ships

Mike is talking about how he thinks it should be, not any particular Traveller ruleset or Traveller in general.

 

[Carlobrand]

10 ton fighters ... are pretty gimptacular ... as far as performance goes.
...

Agreed. The ten-ton set are intended for what CT Book-2 had them doing. In Book 2, they popped up in encounters at worlds with naval bases and, since the context was a player's encounter with them, that implied they were mainly intended as expendable eyes and ears. If a fight developed, one presumes the base would be sending reinforcements. They're cheap though, and would probably be good in a planetary defense role against ships like corsairs because they could mob them; anything much bigger and it's probably better to have them hide in the ocean so they'll still be available once the danger has passed. Broadsword offered 6 ton fighters, but I think they were primarily for air support of ground troops given the ship's purpose. They would not have faired well against serious opposition.

That’s why I have an armor multiplier rule by size code.

If it’s -1 ACS sized, armor tonnage doubles. If it’s -2 small craft sized, it’s tripled.

Justifiable due to much smaller surface area to volume. All that heavy metal has to go somewhere.

I thought I'd remembered something like that.

 

[Grav_Moped]

The ten-ton set are intended for what CT Book-2 had them doing. In Book 2, they popped up in encounters at worlds with naval bases and, since the context was a player's encounter with them, that implied they were mainly intended as expendable eyes and ears

The thing that fighters did in LBB2 was to serve as extra, deployable turrets.

Without bays (let alone spinals), the only ways to get more than 3 shots per turn per 100Td were either lasers at double-fire (needed oversize power plant) or carried fighters.

 

[kilemall]

I thought I'd remembered something like that.

Strictly IMTU, no RAW.

 

[mike wightman]

Ummmm…. If you choose to make the system do that.

A Star Wars ‘naval sim’ has to have fighter lethality since its subject matter does. Perhaps special rules but they can.

Check the title of the thread - we are discussing Traveller not cartoon action hour.

 

[mike wightman]

Mike is talking about how he thinks it should be, not any particular Traveller ruleset or Traveller in general.

HG has no sensor rules, but as soon as you move to BL or BR with sensor rules, weapon ranges...
So I am actually discussing Traveller.

 

[mike wightman]

Again, fully version dependent. Im MgT1E fighters pose more than a decent threat to Capital Ships

That's because the Mongoose authors want to make Traveller more like Star Wars.

 

[McPerth]

That's because the Mongoose authors want to make Traveller more like Star Wars.

And (IMHO) there's nothing inherently bad (nor inherently good) on it... After all, the Imperium seemed quite more SW Empire at the beginings of Traveller, though as OTU was described it became more benevolent

The main fact we confront here is We really don't know a dime about how space combat may be in the Future

We may speculate to boredom, but until we know what tech advances allow it to be true, and we test it, all we can give is speculations, and even the best informed have found to be wrong in the past.

• General Pershing allegedly said in 1912 that "aircrafts are interesting toys,but without military interest" (or so I read many years ago)...
• Battle of Lissa "showed" the Naval Strategists of its time that armored ships were imprevious to gunnery fire, and future was in rams...
• Before Tarento (and even after it by many) ports were seen as the safest places for ships, and torpedoes could not be launched there by planes...
• Until XIX centurey it was believed a man moving (by any means, not just running) at more than 35 km/h would have tis breath taken away

Absurd, you'll say, but that was the "experts' opinion" of the time...

And Traveller, trying to give guidelines for combat, is not free of those problems, different versions having different visions (and no one really knows wich one would be more "realistic", if any).

As I said in the thread from wich this one splintered, if we look other SF settings, we can go from SW or BG, where fighters dominate space combat to ST, where (at least to my knowledge, but I've never been a Trekkie) they don't even exist, while in some otheres (as 2300AD) they are just another factor in combat, and may be from decisive to irrelevant depending on the specific situation (but all fleets want to have them near)

 

[mike wightman]

We know how it works using real world physics. We then extrapolate the fantastic technologies.

 

[mike wightman]

And (IMHO) there's nothing inherently bad (nor inherently good) on it... After all, the Imperium seemed quite more SW Empire at the beginings of Traveller, though as OTU was described it became more benevolent

The main fact we confront here is We really don't know a dime about how space combat may be in the Future

We do, however, understand enough of the physics of it to postulate how it would work in the near future with current engineering and technology. There are lots of books written about it.

We may speculate to boredom, but until we know what tech advances allow it to be true, and we test it, all we can give is speculations, and even the best informed have found to be wrong in the past.

• General Pershing allegedly said in 1912 that "aircrafts are interesting toys,but without military interest" (or so I read many years ago)...
• Battle of Lissa "showed" the Naval Strategists of its time that armored ships were imprevious to gunnery fire, and future was in rams...
• Before Tarento (and even after it by many) ports were seen as the safest places for ships, and torpedoes could not be launched there by planes...
• Until XIX centurey it was believed a man moving (by any means, not just running) at more than 35 km/h would have tis breath taken away

Absurd, you'll say, but that was the "experts' opinion" of the time...

And nott relevant to a discussion about space warfare either in the real world with real technology or the postulated future tech - see FF&S.

And Traveller, trying to give guidelines for combat, is not free of those problems, different versions having different visions (and no one really knows wich one would be more "realistic", if any).

Then look to the rules that give the most detail - Brilliant Lances, Battle Rider, FF&S.

As I said in the thread from wich this one splintered, if we look other SF settings, we can go from SW or BG, where fighters dominate space combat to ST, where (at least to my knowledge, but I've never been a Trekkie) they don't even exist, while in some otheres (as 2300AD) they are just another factor in combat, and may be from decisive to irrelevant depending on the specific situation (but all fleets want to have them near)

Look at the title of the thread, this is about Traveller not wider sci fi so we have to stick to the various incarnations of the rules and setting. We can borrow ideas from other sources, but they have to be compatible with Traveller.

 

[McPerth]

We do, however, understand enough of the physics of it to postulate how it would work in the near future with current engineering and technology.

Current is the key word here... A dangerous word when we talking about future (and more so about SF)

And nott relevant to a discussion about space warfare either in the real world with real technology or the postulated future tech

I guess those building ram-equiped Ironclands in latter XIX century, or those allowing the Pacific Fleet not to deploy their anti-torpedoes nets in Pearl Harbour (or the Italian Fleet in Tarento, for what's worth) said similar things...

I'm not discussing current knowledge (that would probably make you right), I'm showing RL past examples past believing in the old sentnece: Those who forget the past ar doonmed to repeat it

Then look to the rules that give the most detail - Brilliant Lances, Battle Rider, FF&S.

I'm afraid I don't have any of those. They were TNE, IIRC, right?

I'm afraid I was in the Pitchforks and Torches mob when they replaced MT by TNE...

Look at the title of the thread, this is about Traveller not wider sci fi so we have to stick to the various incarnations of the rules and setting. We can borrow ideas from other sources, but they have to be compatible with Traveller.

Can't Traveller be used to represent any of the settings I named?

Traveller is more than OTU or CT:HG, and its many versions give different answers (even the few I know enough to talk about, mostly CT/MT and MgT1E, with some knowledge about T4, though not about its ship rules, that never called me enough as to really study them).

 

[mike wightman]

Current is the key word here... A dangerous word when we talking about future (and more so about SF)

We know how it works now and we have FF&S and T5 to fill in the fantasy tech.

I guess those building ram-equiped Ironclands in latter XIX century, or those allowing the Pacific Fleet not to deploy their anti-torpedoes nets in Pearl Harbour (or the Italian Fleet in Tarento, for what's worth) said similar things...

I'm not discussing current knowledge (that would probably make you right), I'm showing RL past examples past believing in the old sentnece: Those who forget the past ar doonmed to repeat it

And your analogies don't work, We know how the real world works and we know what Traveller postulates.

I'm afraid I don't have any of those. They were TNE, IIRC, right?

I'm afraid I was in the Pitchforks and Torches mob when they replaced MT by TNE...

BR, BL and FF&S are some of the best supplements for Traveller ever made. If you like that sort of thing.

Can't Traveller be used to represent any of the settings I named?

Traveller is more than OTU or CT:HG, and its many versions give different answers (even the few I know enough to talk about, mostly CT/MT and MgT1E, with some knowledge about T4, though not about its ship rules, that never called me enough as to really study them).

You can house rule it to do anything you want, but if we are constrained by the rules as written and the settings as written then we have to be consistent.