what's the point of tiny fighters that can only launch missiles?
Are they "manned sand" meant to soak up laser shots?
o:
Missiles (using nukes) are the only weapon that a fighter might carry that can really damage an armored starship, so, missile armed fighters make more sense (in HG) than laser armed ones.
Having investigated viabilities in Mongoose, it comes down to cost. The larger the craft, the more the drive and the power plant cost.
Also, there's a minimum power plant requirement for energy weapons, so that missile/projectile weapon systems become attractive.
If you take a larger view, militaries need to allow their pilots actual flight time, and giving them access to a high performance but low operating cost fighter helps accomplish this.
In MgT the best weapon for a small fighter is the PA turret. It's TL 8 (in fact, you need to be TL 9 due to the turret needs set in MgT HG changes, see
this thread), has 3 dice damage (against the 2 for nuke missile) and the same power and tonnage needs as lasers.
In MgT you can have a 10 dton heavily armored, PA armed fighter at TL 14+, but the lack of agility rules make them more vulnerable too, as in HG, an Agility 6 fighter is quite hard to hit.
If we want to get the fighter a tiny bit smaller. The Solomani alien module mentions that the solomani don't mind even smaller accommodation and staterooms etc. only need to be 0.8 the size of imperial ones. You might be able to shrink that 0.5 tn control couch down to 0.4 tns.
Those are MT rules, as they are in MT S&A module, not in CT:AM6. If you want to design a fighter by using MT rules, all said to now is void, as rules are quite different (and, BTW, in MT you only meed a roomy seat in single crewman fighter, so 4 kl, less than 1/3 of dton).
Again, this isn't a front line fighter; it is mission specific. I build up to 80dt fighters for front line use. (Costly? YES! But built for a very real purpose under HG combat rules.)
I understand this is a mision specific fighter, but I cast some doubts in Traveller setting this mision specific fighter has much of a niche, thue to operational realities and lack of updated intelligence.
Even so, I must admit the question that led you to begin this thread (the 6 dton fighters told about in the Broadsword Mercenary Cruiser modules) can be one of those niches, as they will be mostly for ground support of the platoon or so carried on it...
As for missile use the "Midge" has exactly three combat volleys before returning to the carrier for reload. The carrier is always in the reserve and therefore only one squadron out of three is in direct combat at a time. One coming, one going and one in. You can still commit ALL at once for an Alpha Strike.
As CT/HG is clear on missile load out for fighters I do account for their ammo usage. I enjoy enjoy "realism" this adds. (I'm a strong believer that HG should track missile use all the way around and that magazines, reloads and resupply need be considered!)
I'd say one squadron in four, as the fourth must be rearming (I guess it would take some time). As there are no ordnance limit rules in HG, neither are there rearming rules...
Fully agreed as the lack of missile limits is one of the HG problems, as said before.
Good point. Hard to work out though. The Midge has Agility 6 though and there is no computer advantage to either side. Also, what is the effective range of the fusion guns on tanks? The Midge can still strike from orbit.
Not sure if this agility 6 is retained in atmosphere, but the tanks will enjoy also sensor/computer support from the planetary assets, and the advantage of cover at least some times. And for grouns support role I guess the missiles used are not nukes, unless you want to just scorch the target...
Also atmospheric aircraft might pose a problem in that role, and the fixed ground deffenses (either energy or missiles) can intercept your missiles and attack your fighters, and I guess they will have more computer support tan a tiny model 1...
BTW, good dialog here and much food for thought.
Fully agreed.
