Fighters/PT Boats in the Traveller Universe

[Spinward Flow]

The relative advantages are range for lasers, and a second weapon for fusion. An extra missile rack has the same to hit possibility.

Dual Turret = Fusion Gun + Missile has a variety of synergies going for it.
The missile is "better" at long range, while the fusion gun is only "useful" at short range (or in a point defense anti-missile role). This substantially mitigates the range drawback of a fusion gun only option.

The downside to that arrangement is combat endurance.
A missile launcher has 3 missiles loaded into it (1 ready to launch, 2 ready reloads).
A sandcasters has 3 sand canisters loaded into it (1 ready to launch, 2 ready reloads).
A turret (single, dual or triple) can store up to 12 additional reloads to be divided amongst all weapons loaded into the turret.

Therefore ... a Fusion Gun + Missile dual turret has a capacity for 15 missiles total.
That means that after 15 rounds of combat, that missile launcher is going to be "empty" and will require resupply from a carrier.

Under MOST circumstances, that's going to be an "acceptable" combat endurance rate, since it's basically "5 hours" of combat engagement endurance, shooting every single combat round. However, there will be edge cases in which resupply from carriers is "not readily available" and so the limited supply of missiles CAN become a liability in certain edge cases.

Adding a 1 ton magazine for the stocking of additional missile reloads can mitigate this liability by a substantial margin. The inclusion of a magazine would also be "required" for the fighter to be capable of planetary bombardment missions (see LBB5.79 for clarification).

The differences in size and cost are insignificant for a MCr 100 fighter.
Triple Laser: 1 Dt + 3 Dt(power) = 4 Dt, MCr 3 + MCr 9(power) = MCr 12.
Single Fusion: 2 Dt + 2 Dt(power) = 4 Dt, MCr 2 + MCr 6(power) = MCr 8.

While the differences in construction cost are "marginal" they are still present.
That MCr4 difference in price that you're citing means +1 fighter per 25 constructed when working under a fixed budget.
Would you rather have 25x squadrons of 10 fighters each ... or 26x squadrons of 10 fighters each ... for the same construction budget?

On paper, it sounds like bean counters nibbling around the edges ... but when "push comes to shove" (with nukes and lasers), having that edge in numbers can wind up being important (or even decisive) when it you start burning through manpower and materiel in missions and engagements.

One of those "amateurs study tactics while professionals study logistics" kinds of deals.

Don't let the drive for "perfection" be the adversary of "good enough to get the job done" in a military context.
Get there FASTEST with the MOSTEST at the CHEAPEST you can manage.

 

[kelumden]

A missing point in this thread is the purpose of different crafts:

• The PT Boat is primarily an anti-ship craft, armed with anti-ship missiles (torpedoes in the original design) and defensive weapons (point defense). It is designed to be fast, without jump capability and lightly armored. Maximum displacement is set at 300 dTons.
• The fighter is primarily designed to protect ships from PT boats. They are designed to be fast, very agile, without jump capability. They are also lightly armored and carry short range missiles and guns, enough to take PT boats or fighters.
• A third class of vessel appeared later: the Fast Attack Craft. It is a larger version of the PT Boat with a maximum displacement of 800 dTons. It may or not have a jump capability and exchange speed and agility against carrying capacity (more missiles, gun, ...).

Ref:

PT boat - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Fast attack craft - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Condottiere]

Lightly protected, relatively big punch.

Stealthify it, and it becomes an Unterseeboot.

 

[McPerth]

The downside to that arrangement is combat endurance.
A missile launcher has 3 missiles loaded into it (1 ready to launch, 2 ready reloads).
A sandcasters has 3 sand canisters loaded into it (1 ready to launch, 2 ready reloads).

Not in CT:HG, where ammo is unlimited (one of its flaws)...

 

[McPerth]

Another advantage of the FG is its +2 DM to penetrate screens (sand)...

If I untended to mount lasers, I'd go for pulse ones (at relatively low TLs, let's say 9-11). They are not less accurate than beams (factor 2 and 3 use the same to hit number), are a little worse against sand (but how many sand batteries will the target have?) and their -2 to damage make them more lethal...

The main problem for fighters in CT:HG is teh cost of computers, If you want them to match large ships ones, you lose the cheap advantage...

 

[chipla]

The main problem for fighters in CT:HG is teh cost of computers, If you want them to match large ships ones, you lose the cheap advantage...

I mean this sort of makes sense (and I think is somewhat the same in MgT based on the 10dton fighter I posted earlier in the thread. (Though in MgT the computers are fairly cheap, software isn’t.)

A computer of similar capabilities should cost a similar amount whether it’s mounted on a big ship or a small one. You could make the argument that the bigger ship should have more subsystems and need more physical computers to monitor those but I think those costs are subsumed into the costs of the components.

That said military equipment isn’t cheap. A single F-22 is something like $350m - as much as a midsized container ship costs to make (according to Google).

 

[Carlobrand]

...
The main problem for fighters in CT:HG is teh cost of computers, If you want them to match large ships ones, you lose the cheap advantage...

Bingo. The computer about doubles the cost of the fighter. Add to this that the nuclear damper at TL 14 forces them to turn to regular missiles or pulse lasers or such and the very real possibility that the target is so heavily armored that even pulse lasers rarely do damage if they hit, and you're left with something that is essentially useless against armored warcraft unless you tweak the rules to support them.

Ideas I've heard along those lines included allowing them to link computers to behave as if the squadron was a single battery, allowing them to take targeting data from another ship on the line so they don't need expensive computers (which leaves them more vulnerable to return fire), and mounting rails on them so they can carry bigger, more powerful missiles for a single good punch (after which they'd need to go to the rear to return to their carriers for reloads).

 

[McPerth]

Ideas I've heard along those lines included allowing them to link computers to behave as if the squadron was a single battery, allowing them to take targeting data from another ship on the line so they don't need expensive computers (which leaves them more vulnerable to return fire), and mounting rails on them so they can carry bigger, more powerful missiles for a single good punch (after which they'd need to go to the rear to return to their carriers for reloads).

IIRC this appeared in a Traveller magazine (I don't remember witch one) as the main advantage of teh Rampart fighter...

Nonetheless, this takes away one of the advantages of fighters: the number of attacks. If each then of them fire as a salvo, you have only one thenth of the attacks...

 

[Carlobrand]

IIRC this appeared in a Traveller magazine (I don't remember witch one) as the main advantage of teh Rampart fighter...

Nonetheless, this takes away one of the advantages of fighters: the number of attacks. If each then of them fire as a salvo, you have only one thenth of the attacks...

True, but the number of attacks is irrelevant if no damage is done. Armor is a real challenge: enough of it can stop all damage from secondary weapons except nukes, and individual fighters can't launch enough missiles to penetrate a nuclear damper at TL 14+. Salvoing at least gives you a chance to penetrate the dampers.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Note that this is a canonical, if optional, rule:

JTAS#14, p26-27:
Close Attack: This is a risky maneuver consisting of a head-long run to close with a target vessel. Squadrons designated as making a close attack may be fired on as if at close range if the two sides are at far range, and at close range with +1 to hit if at close range. If the vessels survive the combat round, they may attack the target vessel at +2 to hit, +1 to penetrate (in addition to DMs due to being at close range). The fighters must then return to the line of battle.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

IIRC this appeared in a Traveller magazine (I don't remember witch one) as the main advantage of teh Rampart fighter...

Challenge#27.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Bingo. The computer about doubles the cost of the fighter.

It's far worse than that...

The computer is the difference between a 6 Dt fighter and an 75 Dt fighter:

FM-0106G01-000000-00003-0        MCr 8,5           6 Dton
bearing               1                            Crew=1
batteries             1                             TL=15
                            Cargo=0 Fuel=1 EP=1 Agility=6

FM-0106N91-000000-00003-0        MCr 208          75 Dton
bearing               1                            Crew=1
batteries             1                             TL=15
                      Cargo=0 Fuel=16,5 EP=16,5 Agility=6

(If we use the pre-errata fuel rules.)

The computer and it's supporting power plant is basically all the cost of a fighter...

 

[McPerth]

Challenge#27.

Thanks

 

[Condottiere]

The electronics and software are fracking expensive at the low tonnage end.

Comparatively.

For the Tigress class, it's a rounding error.

 

[whulorigan]

I would say it's a flaw in LBB5
Fighters should have some effect on capital ships, but probably not be better (more economical) at killing battleships than spinals.

Fighters ought to be useful in doing things like taking out sensor arrays and communications mounts, as these things need to be externally mounted to be effective, and thus unarmored. But the rules don't provide an easy way to deal with that. A blind/deaf/dumb cruiser is effectively out of commission.

 

[Tobias]

There is a nifty little boardgame hidden within HG80, but it requires lots of "new" house rules.

Yes. And that nifty little board game is called Imperium. Redesigning HG combat, one would do well to move back to that basis and keep it as simple as possible while retaining the clear tactical options.

 

[Tobias]

The electronics and software are fracking expensive at the low tonnage end.

Comparatively.

For the Tigress class, it's a rounding error.

That is the problem. The specific problem is that they are especially expensive at the lowest tonnage end.
Even if you use rules to help smaller craft compete against multikiloton capital ships, the rules provide little reason for such smaller craft being fighters rather than gunboats of a few hundred dtons.
The only advantages of fighters: a.) 1 point better size DM. b.) more batteries per total tonnage (although that advantage is marginal at best for the very large fighters needed to field viable computers).

These advantages do not outweigh the massively superior cost effectiveness of gunboats in the 200+ ton range. Compare the 75 dton fighter shared by AnotherDilbert above to the 200 dton SDB in Supp 9. For a ~50% increase in price, the SDB has twice (arguably more than twice) the weaponry, plus near-maximum armor (rendering it basically impervious to all weapons fire other than spinal mounts and nuclear missiles.)

 

[aramis]

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

Lots of inspecific material trimmed from quote...
WHich edition are you talking? Each has a different design system.
CT Bk2 does have fighters, but no design system for them; HG79 and HG80 have different small craft design systems from each other, and those are different than the rest of the ship design in several small ways.
MT has a different design system from any CT one.
TNE's and T4's FF&S are very close to each other and similar to MT's, but still have different performance rating systems for weapons, so what's optimal differs between them.
GT has at least 2 different ship design systems G:V, the "built using GV" one in GT itself; ISTR small craft may be in a supplment.
T20 and HT have design systems that are built off HG 81...

T20, CT Bk5-80 and MT are ratings compatible... the same rating of weapon is the same size and cost in each. Due to damage systems, T20 and MT are both different in resulting strength from CT HG-80...

Specify edition if you don't want more rants...

But then nothing if that is factual.

Mike technically correct and incorrect at the same time. There's no sensor rule limiting range of detection since all ships sensors, even 10Td fighters use the same range as in CT Bk2... and the combat is abstracted enough that range is not a factor. He's twisting his wording for worst view of the ruleset.

Meson artillery from Striker takes just over 1 Dt and 1 EP, very reasonable in spacecraft terms.
I guess the range isn't great for space combat, and they will not penetrate screens?
I have used them for assault shuttles.

They are HG/MT/T20 factor 1, if one reverses the conversions from HG to Striker. Essentially a turret MG. (pun intended)

 

[mike wightman]

Yes. And that nifty little board game is called Imperium. Redesigning HG combat, one would do well to move back to that basis and keep it as simple as possible while retaining the clear tactical options.

No, Imperium doesn't even come close. What it does do is reduce all the fleet capabilities down to a couple of numbers that can be compared via a look up table and a dice roll decides outcomes. Double Star at least offers rules for fleet formations being a factor. HG79 had slightly more movement options that HG80.

 

[mike wightman]

Fighters ought to be useful in doing things like taking out sensor arrays and communications mounts, as these things need to be externally mounted to be effective, and thus unarmored. But the rules don't provide an easy way to deal with that. A blind/deaf/dumb cruiser is effectively out of commission.

Any fighter that can get that close is going to evaporate when hit by 30 beam lasers in point defence mode.
Perhaps when ships are in visual range agility ceases to matter as a defensive DM
Any fighter that can get that close can launch a nuke into a bay weapon mount, a spinal tube, or an exhaust port.
Or fire its battlefield meson gun from inside the meson screen...