Thinking about Fighters...

[aramis]

Thinking about building fighters in HG2E....

The suboptimal design for a Bk2 equivalent fighter I first envisioned is the following:

_TD_ MCr TL=15
10.0 1.10 Cone, 10Td (SL. UCP 02)
_4.0 1.00 Bridge
_1.0 1.00 Triple Turret
_1.7 0.85 MD6
_2.0 6.00 PP20
_1.0 2.00 Model 1
_0.3 0.00 Fuel (4 days)


But then I got to thinking...
The Bk2 fighter is Model 1, but can only carry 1 laser... but has a ton of fuel.
_TD_ MCr TL=15
10.0 1.10 Cone, 10Td (SL. UCP 02)
_4.0 1.00 Bridge
_1.0 1.00 Triple Turret
_1.7 0.85 MD6
_1.0 3.00 PP10
_1.0 2.00 Model 1
_1.0 0.00 Fuel (4 weeks)
_0.3 0.00 cargo
==== ==== ==========
10.0 8.95 Agl 0 if laser, Agl=6 if not.


But that's a sucky fighter... Oh, and it doesn't work below TL15...

So... At TL9, a 10Td fighter...
_TD_ MCr TL=9
10.0 _1.100 Cone, 10Td (SL. UCP 02)
_0.5 _0.025 seat
_1.0 _1.000 Triple Turret
_1.7 _0.850 MD6
_3.0 _9.000 PP10 (1EP)
_2.0 _9.000 Model 2
_1.0 _0.000 Fuel (4 weeks)
_0.8 _0.000 Cargo
==== ====== ==========
10.0 20.975
Take standard discount, and same net performance, and the cost is MCr18.875... plus weapons. Max 1 laser. So... since it's single crewman, weapons may be:
Laser
Laser + SC
Msl
3 Msl
Msl + SC
Note that 2 SC or 2 Msl doesn't differ in performance from 1, and SC don't require extra crew…
Or we can save half an MCr by installing a double turret.

We can optimize it a bit more with a 2 seat variant for mixed weapons
_TD_ MCr TL=9
10.0 _1.100 Cone, 10Td (SL. UCP 02)
_1.0 _0.050 2 seats
_1.0 _1.000 Triple Turret
_1.7 _0.850 MD6
_3.0 _9.000 PP10 (1EP)
_2.0 _9.000 Model 2
_1.0 _0.000 Fuel (4 weeks)
_0.3 _0.000 Cargo
==== ====== ==========
10.0 21.000
Still sucks... but it now can be agility 0, and have a missile, a laser, and a sandcaster….

So... Not the Bk2 fighter. But definitely equivalent performance.

Let's see what a TL13 10 Td fighter can be.
_TD_ MCr TL=13
10.0 _1.100 Cone, 10Td (SL. UCP 02)
_0.5 _0.025 seat
_1.0 _0.500 double Turret
_0.0 _0.500 Beam laser UCP2
_0.0 _0.250 Sandcaster UCP3
_1.7 _0.850 MD6
_3.2 _9.600 PP15 (1.6EP)
_2.0 _9.000 Model 2
_1.6 _0.000 Fuel, 4wk
==== ====== ==========
10.0 21.825
one seater 1.6 EP, Agility 6.

Or
_TD_ MCr TL=13
10.0 _1.100 Cone, 10Td (SL. UCP 02)
_0.5 _0.025 seat
_1.0 _0.500 double Turret
_0.0 _0.750 Missile UCP2
_0.0 _0.250 Sandcaster UCP3
_1.7 _0.850 MD6
_3.2 _9.600 PP6 (1.6EP)
_3.0 18.000 Model 3
_0.6 _0.000 Fuel 1.5 Weeks
==== ====== ==========
10.0 30.475
one seater 1.6 EP, Agility 6. Eff Comp Model 2... Factor 2 missile

 

[shield]

Why cone config. If you are looking for a streamlined fighter you would use config 6 flattened sphere its cheaper.

Okay it doesn't look as good as a config 2 fighter (I can see Vargr going for the config 2 fighter) but is cheaper. Config 2 is better vs meson guns, but who fires a meson gun at a fighter

Cheers
Richard

 

[aramis]

I've been known to use PA spinals and Meson Bays... 50T meson bays kill Adventure Class ships (2000Td and smaller, IMO) pretty dead pretty quick. The primary reason, tho', is sticking close to the canonical fighters... which are essentially cones.

 

[rancke]

I've been known to use PA spinals and Meson Bays... 50T meson bays kill Adventure Class ships (2000Td and smaller, IMO) pretty dead pretty quick. The primary reason, tho', is sticking close to the canonical fighters... which are essentially cones.

And, of course, there's nothing that actually prevents someone from building a ship with identical primary and secondaries or mixed secondaries. It's purely a game artifact of the rules having been simplified to the point of being unable to handle such mixed armament.


Hans

 

[mike wightman]

I agree, it's a stupid limitation of the data string of the USP - MT got rid of it.

You can easily expand the USP for HG to allow for meson spinals and bays on the same ship for example.

 

[McPerth]

If you accept suggestions (as for what I've seen from you till now I have no reason to think otherwise), the first change I'd do in this fighter would be to substitute the Blaser for a Plaser.

Being a single laser, there is no difference on the USP coding, and it has a -2 to the damage tables that can be handy once you hit the enemy (mostly if it's armored, but also on unarmored ships). EDIT:It even saves you some money (MCr0.5/ship).

I also see 4 weeks endurance excessive por a ship without extendend life support. The fuel may last for 4 weeks, but I doubt the pilot would endure more than 24 hours, and that only in extreme cases...

 

[aramis]

I agree, it's a stupid limitation of the data string of the USP - MT got rid of it.

You can easily expand the USP for HG to allow for meson spinals and bays on the same ship for example.

So did T20.

 

[aramis]

If you accept suggestions (as for what I've seen from you till now I have no reason to think otherwise), the first change I'd do in this fighter would be to substitute the Blaser for a Plaser.

Being a single laser, there is no difference on the USP coding, and it has a -2 to the damage tables that can be handy once you hit the enemy (mostly if it's armored, but also on unarmored ships). EDIT:It even saves you some money (MCr0.5/ship).

I also see 4 weeks endurance excessive por a ship without extendend life support. The fuel may last for 4 weeks, but I doubt the pilot would endure more than 24 hours, and that only in extreme cases...

Actually, being CT, it has the equivalent of BLS and ELS for free. It's not got a lot of room, but it's got the needed "in flight relief"...

Which makes me think, "fold out commode, Microwave/Convection combo Oven, armored minifridge, and coffee pot"

 

[pendragonman]

Actually, being CT, it has the equivalent of BLS and ELS for free. It's not got a lot of room, but it's got the needed "in flight relief"...

Which makes me think, "fold out commode, Microwave/Convection combo Oven, armored minifridge, and coffee pot"

don't forget, those are all milspec items, so not cheapo Walmart specials.

 

[McPerth]

Actually, being CT, it has the equivalent of BLS and ELS for free. It's not got a lot of room, but it's got the needed "in flight relief"...

Which makes me think, "fold out commode, Microwave/Convection combo Oven, armored minifridge, and coffee pot"

I know in CT there is no metion to life support in ship design, at 0.5 dton/seat I guess not more than 8-12 hours are expected to be endured there. I imagine it as an acceleration coach, a small head and maybe the minifridge you talked about, but not much more.

 

[sabredog]

It does specify in HG that couches only provide life support in small craft good for up to 24 hrs., beyond that you have to have a small craft stateroom.

So a couch for a fighter pilot is acceptable, but a "heavy" or "patrol" fighter expected to stay out longer should have the stateroom option. But then you are looking at something like a 20+ ton job and veering away form the little laser on a budget the fighters in CT classically are.

 

[far-trader]

It does specify in HG that couches only provide life support in small craft good for up to 24 hrs., beyond that you have to have a small craft stateroom.

Yep, but... I figure the small craft bridge should count as extended ls and provide the equal of a small craft stateroom (ditto the full bridge of ships, for more crew, 5 min). If you only get the couch option then you're limited to 24hrs. IMO and IMTU of course. Not legal in the ROTU

 

[Gray Pennell]

I think its best not to worry about long term life support for a fighter. A fighter should trade life support for fire power or maneuverability. Most of the life support will be done by the suit. The fighter is in combat for a few hrs as a strike force. Its carrier should take care of the rest. If you go for larger and longer duration missions than you should think bomber of SDB.

 

[McPerth]

After reading again the HG (page 34) fuel requirements for small craft, where it's said it may never be less than a ton (don't ask me why), I withrow my objection that 4 weeks are to much endurance.

I keep my suggestion to use Plaser instead of Blaser, though, as I see no advantage to the Blaser being only one weapon (more expensive, same USP rating and lacking the -2 modifier to damage rolls).

 

[far-trader]

Along the lines of other mentions that one needs to rethink old definitions as applied to new technologies I suggest that a space "fighter" with weeks of fight and flight endurance and a minimum 24 hours of crew endurance is NOT the same as a carrier launched aircraft "fighter" in current usage.

Traveller fighters will have very different uses and deployment. Missions that could well last weeks independently of any support ships. I don't see the fighter mission as strictly (or even likely) a combat assignment of a few hours as part of a strike force. Despite that being the canon description. I think you're closer to the mark Gray Pennell with your SDB comparison.

If one wants the canon/traditional role of a fighter then imo one has to redesign them after fixing the rules to eliminate the crippling simplicity of such things as minimum fuel requirements and long endurance.

 

[robject]

Traveller fighters do have different missions. However, living space needs to be accounted for... and bridges are not living space. And the prototypical 10 ton fighter is intended for short missions: attack and/or defend for the duration of an encounter, then return.

A craft couch is fine for a day, but performance will deteriorate drastically after a few days of nothing but a couch, the fresher, and a cardboard box of MREs and recycled water.

Next step up would be a bunk added, then a niche, then a small stateroom, then a full. These simply reduce the negative DMs to the character's sanity, perhaps represented as a cumulative negative DM to his INT, as if it were taking damage, or something.

Best might be a stateroom plus 4 extra tons of living space. With that sort of space he could work for a couple weeks (think of the Xboat pilot). But now you're not talking about a 10 ton fighter.

 

[mike wightman]

Drugs.

The bit of Traveller that everyone forgets about.

Inject your pilot with fast and they can stay out there for 60 days as if it were only 1, make sure the suit computer knows to inject the antidote at the first sign of trouble

As a total aside - and may well end up a new thread - megacorp ceos and nobles of ducal rank and above, are they immortal? They can easily afford the 2.4MCr per year for anagathics...

is there a shadowy cabal of centenarian megacorp directors and "retired" nobles behind the scenes?

 

[far-trader]

I seem to recall some social stigma / prohibition vis-a-vis anagathics and nobles so they don't get to live forever or even extend their life, which I also seem to recall being longish anyway (due to Vilani being naturally longer lived iirc, and of course most if not all High Nobles and megacorp ceos being Vilani), but not specifically megacorp ceos. Though they are probably one in the same, or most of them are.

 

[McPerth]

Drugs.

The bit of Traveller that everyone forgets about.

Inject your pilot with fast and they can stay out there for 60 days as if it were only 1, make sure the suit computer knows to inject the antidote at the first sign of trouble

I'm not sure I'll trust a patrol (one of the fighter missions I envision) to someone whose reflexes are reduced by a factor of 60. By the time this patrol can warn the fleet is alredy under attack.

Unless the drugged person has an intravenous catheter, any drug injected would take 1-15 minutes (relative to body metabolism) to be absorbed and make its effect, so you must choose among having your pilots with such a catheter or to wait 1-15 hours for the antidote to neutralize the drug, and its effect uses to be progressive...

And it's quite hard to tell a computer what is a sign of trouble. While there are clear signs, a sentient brain can subconsciously discriminate in subtle situations where a computer would ignore a sign of trouble or use the antidote without need, depending on the sensibility you put in its program.

And drugs use to have side effects, not worth talking about for ocasional use, but if they are used frequently (as should in the use you suggest) they will probably appear.

 

[mike wightman]

As soon as the fighter's sensors pick up a bogey the pilot's suit can use an auto-injector to inject the instant antidote. Right as rain in 1 combat round.

It could even inject slow drug to speed up the pilot's reflexes for the upcoming combat.