Useful fighters

[aramis]

I;ll give a good reason why non-HG combat mechanics need to avoid deflector shields:

Deflectors are either surface mounted field generators, or core mounted generatorsm with some kind of quantized "Level of radiative effect"...

And since in mode one, the surface area mode, the result are that you can, due to the square-cube law, have more power per surface area on bigger ships, and thus better shields.

In case two, the central generator more, the inverse-aquare rule holds sway: the volume protected goes up on a ^(3/2) mode as core size (and hence power) goes up. Again, pro-big-ship.

Worst case: Field A, a core field, generrates field B (which interdicts) by interacting with a surface treatment. Bigger ships have smaller area for surface treament, and more volume for power and field generators per distance from genrator.

Fighters, to be viable, need to be able to do the following:
1) arrive in their own weapons range
2) survive long enough in weapons range to fire
3) provide enough damage to be contributive to overal damage. (Here is where HG fails, BTW.)
4) cost less for unit damage done than equivalent larger craft.

Small target modifiers, cumulative damage systems (MT, GT, T20, to some extent TNE, T4), and high maneuverability can all make it possible.

 

[Anthony]

Originally posted by Aramis:
In case two, the central generator more, the inverse-aquare rule holds sway: the volume protected goes up on a ^(3/2) mode as core size (and hence power) goes up. Again, pro-big-ship.

Actually, worst case is an inverse square formula where what matters is integrating force over distance; this, for example, describes the real behavior of magnetic shields for blocking solar radiation. This winds up with component weight scaling with strength^2 * radius, which is even more big-ship friendly...

 

[Pwyll]

Originally posted by marginaleye:
Hello? Did you even bother to read the message I posted, or did you just reflexively stop cold as soon as you got to the words deflector shields?

well, maybe just bit

 

[marginaleye]

well, maybe just bit

My apologies if I seemed a bit more irate than was really necessary.

I agree, by the way, that adding deflector shields would tend to make fighters even less viable than they already are. On the other hand, I've never really felt the need for fighters (either as mobile missle racks, or as glorified sensor drones), so it's not a loss I feel particularly keenly. About the only real uses I can see for fighters is (a) intercepting basically defenseless merchant ships (commerce raiding and in-system patrol), and (b) supporting troops during ground-assault missions. But IMTU, no fighter pilot in his or her right mind would ever willingly get within firing range of a large unfriendly warship, and sensible naval officers would regard such tactics as the very definition of bloody wasteful desperate stupidity. Carriers tend to be quite small, since they are intended mainly for convoy-escort duty and the like.

 

[mike wightman]

The deflector/defence sceen/cloaking device may not be as far away as you think, and if this article is anything to go by then the tech should be possible to postulate for the Traveller universe.

Anyway it is your game, if you want defence screens just change wording and the way sandcasters work. If you want repulsors and tractor beams at lower TLs than in the OTU then take a leaf from TNE FF&S and change the TL progression for different types of tech.

 

[BetterThanLife]

the PHM Pegasus class was the last in the US Navy. A quick small ship designed for fast patrol and the successor to the Torpedo Boat. It had a 3" auto cannon and 8 Harpoon Launchers. With a top speed in excess of 49 knots and good sea worthiness. The Soviet Navy, Chinese Navy, German Navy and Nowegian Navy all still use small patrol boats. They exist but aren't useful for power projection and therefore don't get the press of, say the Nimitz or the Los Angeles.

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Actually, Torpedo Boats changed things briefly. They forced the introduction of Torpedo Boat Destroyers, aka Destroyers. In other words, it became necessary to screen capital ships against attacks by small craft.

This is close to the model that should be used for fighters in Traveller IMHO. It's the torpedo equivalent that's missing from Traveller, not the delivery system.
Where are the capital ship class tenders that act as motherships to squadrons of torpedo boats in the modern Navy ?
The destroyer proved so effective that the torpedo boat concept went away.
Modern coastguards sometimes employ fast cutters to intercept merchant ships and smugglers but I don't know of any purely military versions ( that's not to say there aren't any, I just don't know about them). </font>[/QUOTE]

 

[aramis]

Originally posted by Bhoins:
the PHM Pegasus class was the last in the US Navy. A quick small ship designed for fast patrol and the successor to the Torpedo Boat. It had a 3" auto cannon and 8 Harpoon Launchers. With a top speed in excess of 49 knots and good sea worthiness. The Soviet Navy, Chinese Navy, German Navy and Nowegian Navy all still use small patrol boats. They exist but aren't useful for power projection and therefore don't get the press of, say the Nimitz or the Los Angeles.

the PHM and similar aren't actually a good model because they ARE SO MUCH FASTER than capital ships.

And the problem is that they are too small for effective deployments in an autonomous role, and the environment they operate in HAS superior sub-craft for delivery of the same payloads which doesn't share the same edium.

If there were no naval air, the PHM would probably still be used. But, since naval air can and does deliver equivalent warheads with greater flexibility, the PHM has no need to be.

Now, as for the "No Pilot in his right mind..." BS... I've not met many pilots who are in their right mind, let alone fighter jocks. To be a fighter pilot, you have to have a bit of a cowboy attitude to begin with, and it gets ramped up (to a certain extent) by the training regimen. You have to believe you really are Hot Sh*t to push an aircraft into the upper right cornner of the stress/loading diagram... and tactical fighter pilots do that EVERY DAY. Fighter pilots go out every day knowing that one hit could be their doom, and that there ARE IN FACT A**H*les out there with SAMS, MIGS, and other "toys" who are in fact interested in killing them, and may be actively trying to do it today. And they do it anyway, if not BECAUSE it is dangerous.

Ideology and other morale factors can overcome any ammount of "A sane man won't do this" in humans. So can adrenaline "addiction."

 

[marginaleye]

Now, as for the "No Pilot in his right mind..." BS... I've not met many pilots who are in their right mind, let alone fighter jocks. To be a fighter pilot, you have to have a bit of a cowboy attitude to begin with, and it gets ramped up (to a certain extent) by the training regimen. You have to believe you really are Hot Sh*t to push an aircraft into the upper right cornner of the stress/loading diagram... and tactical fighter pilots do that EVERY DAY. Fighter pilots go out every day knowing that one hit could be their doom, and that there ARE IN FACT A**H*les out there with SAMS, MIGS, and other "toys" who are in fact interested in killing them, and may be actively trying to do it today. And they do it anyway, if not BECAUSE it is dangerous.

I freely confess that I am no military historian (and even if I made no such confession, it would probably be obvious) but dangerous is one thing, and frankly suicidal is another. I can easily envision fighter pilots doing risky, flashy things around, say, "ethically-challenged ex-merchants," fragile escort-sized (~1-5k-dton) commerce-raiders, and the like -- but getting up close to a hostile battleship to deliver that perfectly-placed shot ("stay on target... stay on target...") would be akin to charging up a steep bare hill towards a fortified, machinegun-studded pillbox, armed only with a pocket-knife.

Basically, I'm saying that the mentality of a figher pilot in the Traveller universe (with, or without, any heretical alterations like deflector shields), isn't going to be the same as that of the figher pilots of today. They're not going any faster, they're not (much) more maneuverable, they're not better armed, and they're not soaring, god-like, over the battlefield, looking down on the earth-bound lesser mortals. They're probably regarded not as an elite, but a sort of semi-respectable eccentric specialist -- the masters of a job that's undoubtedly demanding, and has a certain swashbuckling panache, but is basically a dead-end as far as the naval career is concerned.

 

[aramis]

Fighter Pilots not elite?

Well, to serve two roles, each is served at (skill level -1) effective level. So, to earn those wings, they need Ship's Boat 1, gunnery 1... and few would stay that low for long; pilot should go up faster than ship's boat during peacetime. So the norm is probably Ship's Boat 2 and Gunnery 2.

Elite? Of course. The myth is more important than the reality for recruiting purposes. The typical fighter (6G) is faster than the typical battleshhip (around 4G in canonicl designs) but not much. they are harder to hit. The small size makes for a -2 to hit the fighter, and a +2 for the fighter to hit many capital ships, and +1 for the rest. Add the Agility of 6 for fighter designs, and take a 30Td fighter witha model 9, and it is HARD to hit.

mind you, you hit it, it dies.

Fighting despite knowing that many of you are going to be killed is what military indoctrination is all about.... (Well, actually, it is to keep you fighting the right battles, but lose enough)

Saddam Hussein's Fedayin are still fighting, despite knowing that if they get caught, they will be tortured and killed (even tho that isn't likely, they are indoctrinated to believe it).

Hell, we've got people in missile silos who are willing to launch armageddon if the order comes.

Historically, there has seldom been trouble finding troops for suicidal tasks... Look at Japan, WWII.

 

[Tobias]

Originally posted by Aramis:
Elite? Of course. The myth is more important than the reality for recruiting purposes. The typical fighter (6G) is faster than the typical battleshhip (around 4G in canonicl designs) but not much.

Actually, the typical canon battleship has 5-6Gs.

and take 30Td fighter witha model 9, and it is HARD to hit.

A 6G, 30-ton fighter with a model/9? I think not, at least not in HG.

Regards,

Tobias

 

[marginaleye]

Saddam Hussein's Fedayin are still fighting, despite knowing that if they get caught, they will be tortured and killed (even tho that isn't likely, they are indoctrinated to believe it).

Indeed, and so are all the ordinary Iraqis who are understandably upset at having (very) foreign troops with (at least from their perspective) questionable motives occupying their country. (I strongly suspect the attitude is some combination of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" and "he may have been a sonafabitch, but at least he was our sonafabitch"). But I digress, and fear I may be wandering into a rhetorical tinderbox (nay, a powder-keg).

Seriously, though...
Surely suicidal and futile (and/or insignificant) is an unattractive combination, from a recruiting perspective.

Viable fighters are (for their size) really hideously expensive, and since each one requires its own costly computer, they're going to be financially inefficient too. Just how many of those large and exceedingly costly computers is one willing to throw away? Pilots aren't exactly disposable, either. Indeed, Adventure 5: Trillion Credit Squadron states that the number of pilots available can have a strong influence on squadron composition. No... the very existence of things like the Antiama-class fleet carrier (p. 36 of Supplement 9: Fighting Ships) is just another case of canon being broken (or at least seriously cracked).

 

[Hal]

Assuming a Population 10 world...

Assuming that the planet only utilizes 1% of its population for the military. Assuming only 1% of that is suitable for pilot material...

.01 x .01 x 10,000,000,000 = 1,000,000 pilots

For a pop 7 world, this works out to 28,000+

I have a hard time believing that the number of pilots limitation really presents a problem for pilots in the Imperium. A carrier using fighter pilots isn't going to use a large number of available pilots.

As a final note: in wargames, when a unit is rendered "destroyed" doesn't mean that casualties are 100%. It just means unit cohesion has rendered the unit unusuable. Likewise, I suspect that a fighter that is destroyed in combat doesn't neccessarily mean the pilot is dead (although crippled takes him out of the war just as badly as being dead).

Things to consider...

 

[aramis]

Originally posted by marginaleye:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Saddam Hussein's Fedayin are still fighting, despite knowing that if they get caught, they will be tortured and killed (even tho that isn't likely, they are indoctrinated to believe it).

Indeed, and so are all the ordinary Iraqis who are understandably upset at having (very) foreign troops with (at least from their perspective) questionable motives occupying their country. (I strongly suspect the attitude is some combination of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" and "he may have been a sonafabitch, but at least he was our sonafabitch"). But I digress, and fear I may be wandering into a rhetorical tinderbox (nay, a powder-keg).

Seriously, though...
Surely suicidal and futile (and/or insignificant) is an unattractive combination, from a recruiting perspective.

Viable fighters are (for their size) really hideously expensive, and since each one requires its own costly computer, they're going to be financially inefficient too. Just how many of those large and exceedingly costly computers is one willing to throw away? Pilots aren't exactly disposable, either. Indeed, Adventure 5: Trillion Credit Squadron states that the number of pilots available can have a strong influence on squadron composition. No... the very existence of things like the Antiama-class fleet carrier (p. 36 of Supplement 9: Fighting Ships) is just another case of canon being broken (or at least seriously cracked). </font>[/QUOTE]Or the ruleset being used to evaluate it being broken.

Remember, in packing lasers per ton, MT optimmizes aabout 15-20 tons (big enough for a decent computer). CT about 35-40 tons. TNE has wholly different assumptions, and fighters can and do operate efffectively under Brillian Lances, and under the MT Vehicular rules (Rather than the space combat rules, which are nought but a HG variant). With a pen/ten of 70/5, that's a penetrating hit on mst starships to 5 range bands past short(very distant) doing 250 or more hits of damage (TL8 laser does 500 base, halved for limited penetration).
Past that, most ships will take 50, a number of damage gauranteed to put a scout courier out of action, even with the x10 hits erratta in the MT GM screen.

(Pen/atten and damage on MT PM pg 80)

effectively, minimmum damage from an MT laser is 25 hits for a TL 8 laser from Regional to far orbit is 25. 500 base, x1/10 for a no pen result, and it's to structure automatically, and x1/2 for a minimum needed to-hit roll. It will do this much to any craft with less than 351 AV.
TL 13 lasers do about 50% more...

The formula for hull damage points is
inoperative: 10 * volume (in Cubic Meters) /15
Destroyed: 10 * volume (in Cubic Meters) /6

or, in MT Tons Displacement:
Inop: Tonnage x9
Dest: tonnage x 22.5

In tons from any other edition:
Inop= 9.33333333 x tons
dest= 23.333333333 x tons

So a scout courier has 900 Hits to KO.
a largish battlehship has 4.5 million hits to KO.

A fighter (using vehcile rules, rather than HG, mind you of TL 13 is firing at Difficult (11+) dropped a level for target size, to routine. Max hit is 3200 DP. minimum is (assuming armor > 70) 25. One shot per 6 seconds. Hitting the drives can make life even worse for the poor ship.

with a +3 dm, almost half (14/36) the hits will be for 1600 DP each.

Now, the problem with this is that MT's base combat rules don't provide realistic maneuver in either case, and space combat turns for HG-style are 20 minutes. versus one shot per 6 seconds. fighters don't liv long if they get hit. Also not counted in MT's system is further bonuses for larger targets, nor relative movement penalties.

so batleships MUST mount turet weapons to deal with massed fighters, as spinals have other issues.

 

[mike wightman]

Where are the capital ship class tenders that act as motherships to squadrons of torpedo boats in the modern Navy ?

I hate to quote myself but I have just found a possible answer.
In today's Sunday Times there is an article about a proposed "mother ship" being built for the Royal Navy.
This would be home for 4 to 6 FSC (future surface combatant- a 50 knot, stealthy design, 20-40 crew).
Interesting.

 

[BetterThanLife]

I noticed something funny about TA#7. the two sizes of fighters are 20T light fighters and 80T bombers and Strike Fighters. But all the ships carry 15T light fighters and 50T FH, and bombers. I spent a couple of hours designing a couple of variants of the 15T FL (Both Laser Armed and Missile Armed as in Sup 5 for the Rampart.) at both TL 14 and 15. Then designed 3 50 T fighters, one with straight missile armament, one with with fusion and one with a mix. (Bomber, Strike fighter and FH) again at both TL 14 and TL 15. The TL 15 fighters wound up with a crew of three (and 2 staterooms for long deloyments.) I also put together a TL 14 Zho 8t fighter under the T20 rules. (It only can manage 5G and agility 5, there just isn't room for anything more.) It also only manages 3 days worth of fuel, but since you aren't supposed to be deployed more than 12 hours without a small craft cabin I guess that doesn't matter.

If anyone wants me to post the designs I will be happy to.

Originally posted by cmdrx:
I've found fighters to be only useful for patrol/inteception type work against lightly or unarmoured targets. They simply do not have enough firepower fo do any real damage singly. Now when grouped together into squadrons of 10 or more, you basicaly have an extra weapons battery to use at high USP (10 fighters with 3 lasers each equals a USP9 battery). Fighter squads like this work well as an extra point defense system.

Note that I'm talking about the light fighters here. Sure, sending a squadron of light fighters against a capital ship will merely annoy the ship(oh look, mosquitoes *SMACK*), but those heavy fighters can be a pain. Anyone who has TA#7 has seen the Grigrot Fighter which is a nasty ship. This sucker has got AR14 meaning nothing short of a spinal weapon(!), fusion gun, meson, or very lucky shot(critical) will hurt this thing. And it still manages to pull 6g. Heavy armour like this is needed because of the short range weapon (fusion gun). A squadron of 20 equals the firepower of a 50dt fusion gun bay (but not the range).

It depends on the craft and what mission it was designed for. The right tool for the right job as they say.

Personaly I like fighters, mind you I do try to design them to be more effective than standard TU fighters. Too much Star Wars and BSG in my youth would be to blame.

 

[BetterThanLife]

I forgot to mention that a missile bay firing nukes or laser head missiles will still seriously damage a fighter with an AR of 15. And Nukes crit easy.

 

[mike wightman]

I forgot to mention that a missile bay firing nukes or laser head missiles will still seriously damage a fighter with an AR of 15. And Nukes crit easy.

No, they won't damage the fighter with anything less than a critical hit

.
A factor 9 missile bay inflicts 5+9 d6 damage. The AR of 15 reduces this to 1d6-2 points. Better hope for a critical hit .

 

[BetterThanLife]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> I forgot to mention that a missile bay firing nukes or laser head missiles will still seriously damage a fighter with an AR of 15. And Nukes crit easy.

No, they won't damage the fighter with anything less than a critical hit

.
A factor 9 missile bay inflicts 5+9 d6 damage. The AR of 15 reduces this to 1d6-2 points. Better hope for a critical hit . </font>[/QUOTE]Only if you let the fighters in that close. On the Strategic scale you get 5 more dice. You are doing 4 dice of damage a hit with a 15% chance of a Crit. And on a Crit you are doing 19D6 and 14D12. That is an average of 157 points of SI damage!(And I don't remember if there is a multiplier for a Nuke.) Even without a Crit you are doing an average 14 points of damage a hit. Except that removing the lowest 15 dice is likely to leave you with all 5s and 6s. It won't take all that long to reduce a fighter to scrap. Doesn't a ship have an SI = to its tonnage? (100T Scout has SI=100?) 2-4 hits kills an FH. 1 hit kills an FL with AR 15 (If you can put that together.)

The return fire is in the no damage without a Crit category even with an Atlantic Cruiser. Forget about the BBs. And a Cruiser can soak up lots more damage, even crit damage than a whole bunch of fighters. If a Cruiser fires 40 missile bays at fighters it should score around 5 crits, (Nukes) Using the squadron rules and grouping your fighters into groups of 10 you would need 400 fighters to get 40 shots (At factor 7 if you are missile armed, factor 9 if you are fusion armed. That could hurt the first turn all other things being equal but then the attrition on the fighters will definitely start to tell.) That is a fighter wing from a Fleet Carrier. A CarRon costs about the same as a CruRon. A CruRon has 8 Cruisers. Depending on which Cruisers you have a you are criting 40 fighters a turn. (If the fighters are fusion armed and the Cruisers are mobile they can stand off the fighters off for 10 turns without trying hard.)

 

[mike wightman]

Well thought out. I had forgotten about the strategic level bonuses that apply in the advanced combat section. It begs the question why these bonuses aren't mentioned in the basic(strategic) level combat since they should still apply.
What about the difficulty of hitting an AC32 fighter?

 

[BetterThanLife]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
Well thought out. I had forgotten about the strategic level bonuses that apply in the advanced combat section. It begs the question why these bonuses aren't mentioned in the basic(strategic) level combat since they should still apply.
What about the difficulty of hitting an AC32 fighter?

It isn't usually that high an AC on a FH, just the one I put together. But even then it isn't that bad. Average roll of 10.5 + USP9 + Computer assisted gunnery + Gunnery Skill + Ship's tactics Leadership bonus of the Commander + Fleet Tactics Leadership bonus of the Squadron Commander. (Does a Gunnery roll get the BAB as well?) I figure with all the mods and no real ECM, (Normally a fighter doesn't have a big enough crew to run ECM, sensors the guns and fly the ship.) under T20 a Missile bay will hit an AC32 fighter a little over half the time. 8 Cruisers 40 bays each, that should translate to 160 hits per turn. A light carrier's wing goes down in one turn. A fleet carrier takes a little longer 4-6 turns. And it only takes that long if the fighters are all AC32! All of the Lasers and Repulsors are used for point defense to knock down the fighter's missiles. (If all of the Fighters were Bombers, using the squadron rules, using the fleet carrier from TA7.) That is 45 factor 7 shots. The typical Cruiser has what, 20 factor 9 lasers? 8 Cruisers (We have been ignoring the escorts so far lets keep it simple.) can take 160 point defense shots. With factor 9 lasers it is virtually a gimme. Your fighters get slaughtered and you score no damage for your efforts. And all the while I can turn the 8 Spinal Mounts on your Starships each turn. (Provided you are close enough.) What happens if I score the Carrier with a couple of Spinal Crits? Your fighters are dead without even getting shot at.

Strike Fighters are virtually useless against an awake commander. It is going to take you more than 5 turns to get into range for your Fusion guns. By that time your fighter squadron is already decimated.

I figure fighters in Traveller are like Chemical Weapons today. Against a Military Unit they are virtually useless, against civilians they can be extremely devastating.