Zhodani light fighter drone

[McPerth]

Known by the Imperium as X-310, this drone is the Zhodani space equivalent to their warbots in ground forces:

Item	Description	notes	dton	MCr
Hull S1 streamlined	10 dtons	Hull: 0 Superstructure:1	10	1.1
Armor	Bonded Superdense	9 points	0.75	0.825
Maneuver sF	Gravitic	Thrust 12	3	6
PP sG	Fusion	Rating 12	3	6
Computer	Model 2	rating 10	-	0.16
Electronics	Standard	DM -4	0	-
Drone Core	TL 14	Int: 9 (+1), Edu: 11 (+1)	1.5	10
Weapons	Fixed PB	Accurate, very high yeld, variable range	1	4.5
Fuel	1 week endurance	-	.75	0
Software	Maneuver	Rating 0	-	0
.	Fire control/2	Rating 10	-	4
Totals	-	-	0	28.585

Skills software (as per HG page 60) are: Intellect/4, Expert pilot/3, expert gunnery/3, Expert sensors/3, expert astrogation/2.

While more expensive than human piloted fighters, the Zhodani use them in quite high numbers (as happens with their warbots). The advantages they see are:

• Off course: not risking manpower
• The fact they are not affected by fatigue allows them to keep in patrol for the full endurance of their PP (in this case up to a week)
• They save the crew's stateroom space (and life support costs) in their carriers, allowing for them to be carried in higher numbers (about 10-20% more)

Unlike the warbots used by ground troops, though, and due to the higher distances involved in space combat, the psionic flicking possibilities are limited, needing for a more autonomous (and quite more expensive) core.

When the fleet is not actively in combat, those fighters (as said above, not affected by fatigue as human pilots do) are usually kept out of the carriers as ready patrol, supported by the sensors of larger ships, so that they don't need to be scrambled in case of a suddeen attack. Most maintenance is done when the carrier is in jumpspace to have them ready for the next stop.

In combat Zhodani use to throw them in large flights (the offensive modifier is +2 due to skill, +2 per fire control, +1 per accurate, +2 per very high yeld, +3 due to dice/weapon, for a total of +10), usually trying to close for a Fast Straffing Run (HG, page 81, last paragraph). If the fleet needs to withdraw, they are usually sent in a massive attack to cover it (again, akin their tactics with warbots in ground forces), being considered expandable if needed (while any human piloted figher is recovered if at all posible).

 

[wbyrd]

My god what hath thou wrought!!!!

This would make me wish I had joined the marines instead for sure.

a nasty combination would be pairing up a drone with some sort of Psionic interface with Coordinators/pilots in similar craft.

 

[Patron Zero]

As real-world technology evolves in the science of warfare, so should Traveller reflect such with wider application of drones.

 

[wbyrd]

Definitely. Of course then you set up the game world for "rise of The machines"

if you watch Enders Game ( still prefer the book) . Almost their entire offensive force were small expendable drones you can see how effective a drone swarm can be.

 

[McPerth]

a nasty combination would be pairing up a drone with some sort of Psionic interface with Coordinators/pilots in similar craft.

In fact, that would be a must, as otherwise the Tactics check for initiative (I make it mandatory as chained, as told as optional in page 73, if they want to use initiative in the options given in pages 81-83) would be made at -3, as drones have no tactics skill. If the chained rolls are not used, I'd still apply a negative DM to initiative to represent that (unless human led, off course).

It would also be a good idea to have some of them armed with lasers and sandcasters to act as point defense (lasers against missiles, sandcasters against missiles and lasers) to add survivalty to the flight.

As warbots are not sent alone in Zhodani tactics, so wouldn't fighter drones, though communications would be more by radio and less by psionic flicking due to distances involved (see that what is distant for personal combat is adjacent in space).

 

[McPerth]

As real-world technology evolves in the science of warfare, so should Traveller reflect such with wider application of drones.

One difference would be communication time lag for those drones. As they are intended to fight at quite a distance form their motherships, they cannot be remotely piloted, as even part of a second time lag can be disastrous when weapons are so accurate as lasers or PBs (that travel at c speed, or near so for the PBs).

In fact, I'd expect fighters to be acting at distances quite over what is called distant in MgT CB (50 kk), to keep the capital ships safe (akin what is done with carrier's air groups today), so having some human piloted fighters to direct them would be a must (unless they are sent to cover a withdraw, as spacified above).

 

[wbyrd]

It would also be a good idea to have some of them armed with lasers and sandcasters to act as point defense (lasers against missiles, sandcasters against missiles and lasers) t.

If you mixed in sanddcaster armed fighters loaded with a mix of sand and chaff, they could be paired up with offensive fighters, using the Defensive escort orders..( I cant remember the exact term)

which lets them intercept incoming fire on the vessel/craft they are escorting. The escort drone wouldn't need to be as expensive as the combat drone since it's primary job is to ensure the survival of the attack drone.

 

[Dagrill]

Known by the Imperium as X-310, this drone is the Zhodani space equivalent to their warbots in ground forces:

In combat Zhodani use to throw them in large flights (the offensive modifier is +2 due to skill, +2 per fire control, +1 per accurate, +2 per very high yeld, +3 due to dice/weapon, for a total of +10), usually trying to close for a Fast Straffing Run (HG, page 81, last paragraph). If the fleet needs to withraw, they are usually sent in a massive attack to cover it (again, akin their tactics with warbots in ground forces), being considered expandable if needed (while any human piloted figher is recovered if at all posible).

Hi,

you missed the -1 for Particle Beam at close range (you can only make a strafing run at close range) and I'd give it at least a model 3 computer, with fire control 3 (at +4 MCr). I have not done any drone designs, but I would use this one.

Kind Regards

David

 

[McPerth]

Hi,

you missed the -1 for Particle Beam at close range (you can only make a strafing run at close range) and I'd give it at least a model 3 computer, with fire control 3 (at +4 MCr). I have not done any drone designs, but I would use this one.

Kind Regards

David

Well, I ignored for the modifiers told those derivated from distance, as they are variable. Yes, at close distance, the PB has a -1 DM, as it has in adjacent (as being fired by small craft), but that can be offset by the +2 for the fast straffing run (while giving also a -2 to the defender).

The fact the PBs are variable range makes the distance modifier 0 for short to very long distance.

Off course fire control can be upgraded (by upgrading the computer too) at a cost in MCr...

As told in other threads, MgT does not forbide PBs to be used in atmosphere, but I keep it from previous versions, so making this fighter a pure space one. The fact of being streamlined is molstly to allow it to be opperated from ground installations when not in carriers.

 

[wbyrd]

As told in other threads, MgT does not forbide PBs to be used in atmosphere, but I keep it from previous versions, so making this fighter a pure space one. The fact of being streamlines is molstly to allow it to be opperated from ground installations when not in carriers.

I understand why you keep the particle beams vacuum only weapons...makes sense fro several angles...Limits the drones strategic value, but stays true to your overall vision of how things work.( which I commend highly)

one idea to solve the it can't fight in atmosphere issue...make the weapons modular..it adds a bit to the cost but it would allow the user to fit weapons for various missions into the design.

 

[mike wightman]

There is no reason why particle beam weapons won't work in an atmosphere, you just have to change the particles. In a vacuum you need a beam of neutral particles, which requires a mechanism for neutralising the charged particles your weapon accelerates.

In an atmosphere you are actually better off with a charged particle beam.

 

[wbyrd]

There is no reason why particle beam weapons won't work in an atmosphere, you just have to change the particles. In a vacuum you need a beam of neutral particles, which requires a mechanism for neutralising the charged particles your weapon accelerates.

In an atmosphere you are actually better off with a charged particle beam.

they have experimented with particle beams as part of the old SDI program. It was passed over in favor of laser weapons for research due to a few problems they found..

.they are inaccurate and diffused quickly in atmosphere....most of the energy gets absorbed by the air instead of the target. the particles hit particles of air, transfer energy to the gas particle which goes bounding off on it's own rather than follow the beam to the target...same thing happens with lasers but to a lessser degree since photons are very small and hit fewer particles.

Another factor is that a planetary magnetic field makes them wobble a bit.you cant precisely control the path of the beam outside of laboratory conditions. the beam would send off another fraction of it's total power as you make adjustments to the path of the beam to ensure it hits it's target.

The US DOD, went through a few years of budget on the problem and so far they have not found a particle beam that's practical in atmosphere...they have successfully fielded a few laser weapons in the same time though...

 

[McPerth]

I understand why you keep the particle beams vacuum only weapons...makes sense fro several angles...Limits the drones strategic value, but stays true to your overall vision of how things work.( which I commend highly)

one idea to solve the it can't fight in atmosphere issue...make the weapons modular..it adds a bit to the cost but it would allow the user to fit weapons for various missions into the design.

Another would be to simply add some anti-personnel weapon, like the fusion gun shown in the G-carrier (CB, page 103) or similar.

After all according table in MgT:HG page 61, a 10 dton fighter may have it, aside from its space sized weapon, but I guess that would need also MgT vehicle rules, that I don't have access to

There is no reason why particle beam weapons won't work in an atmosphere, you just have to change the particles. In a vacuum you need a beam of neutral particles, which requires a mechanism for neutralising the charged particles your weapon accelerates.

In an atmosphere you are actually better off with a charged particle beam.

That's what I understood from the JTAS articles about PAWS, but would it be so easy to alternate the weapon among charged and neutral particles (frankly, I have no idea about it)?

And, even if so, what would be need to use them as ortillery (not for those fighters, but for larger ships), where the ship fires in vacuum against an atmospheric target?

 

[whulorigan]

That's what I understood from the JTAS articles about PAWS, but would it be so easy to alternate the weapon among charged and neutral particles (frankly, I have no idea about it)?

You can easily have a variable C-PAWS/N-PAWS system.

1) You use Hydrogen atoms as your beam.

2) You ionize the atoms and accelerate the protons separately to relativistic speeds.

3) Fire the beam:

3a) You already have a charged beam if that is what you want;

3b) If you need a neutral beam, you pass the accelerated protons back through a cloud of the previously stripped electrons, which the proton beam subsequently picks up and turns back into a beam of neutral hydrogen atoms, retaining their relativistic speed.​

 

[Dagrill]

There is no reason why particle beam weapons won't work in an atmosphere, you just have to change the particles. In a vacuum you need a beam of neutral particles, which requires a mechanism for neutralising the charged particles your weapon accelerates.

In an atmosphere you are actually better off with a charged particle beam.

Does this make planetary defence PB weapons unfeasible?

Sorry to go off topic, but curious about the science (I studied History)

Kind Regards

David

 

[McPerth]

Does this make planetary defence PB weapons unfeasible?

Sorry to go off topic, but curious about the science (I studied History)

Kind Regards

David

IIRC what JTAS told about PAWS, charged particle beams would not work in space, as the mutual repulsion among protons would disperse the beam too soon. On the other side, those same charged PBs would work better in atmosphre, where you can ionizate (with a laser) its path and keep it more coherent than neutral particles, that would tend to be stopped/dispersed by atmosphere.

So, while I accept what whulorigan says about a single selector being able to use a PB as c-PAWS or n-PAWS, I have doubts (as told above) about the same PB being useful both in atmosphere and out of it at once, as such ground based PB (or space based ortillery) would need.

As I understand it, the ground based PB would be fired as c-PAWS (as it's fired in atmosphere), and would diperse when it goes out of it, while the space based ortillery would be fired as n-PAWS (as it is in vacuum), and will have problems when entering in atmosphere.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Sorry I'm late to the party, but you did refer to it in another thread.

I'm afraid that your shipyards will tell you they can't build this craft, and that your admirals will be unimpressed if you did.

The weapon uses six tech advantages at no cost. By RAW the max is three tech advantages at 200% cost. Minor problem.

With a single structure point, only 9 pts armour, and no Evade software its death rate will only be limited by the number of enemy gunners. It will be slaughtered in great number by any opponent with semi-competent armaments. Major problem...

This has nothing to do with it being a drone of course.

 

[McPerth]

Sorry I'm late to the party, but you did refer to it in another thread.

No problem on it. The party is never over (unless the thread is closed), and comments are always welcome.

I'm afraid that your shipyards will tell you they can't build this craft, and that your admirals will be unimpressed if you did.

The weapon uses six tech advantages at no cost. By RAW the max is three tech advantages at 200% cost. Minor problem.

You're right here.

This fighter was designed before you (among others) made me realise I read the rules wrongly (see this post and the following ones), and I have not fixed it. I probably will, now that you remembered me about it...

With a single structure point, only 9 pts armour, and no Evade software its death rate will only be limited by the number of enemy gunners. It will be slaughtered in great number by any opponent with semi-competent armaments. Major problem...

This has nothing to do with it being a drone of course.

That depends on what they are to confront.

Against high TL (and so high FC) enemies armed with bays, you're probably right, though if they have to use their bays against your drones you have already won something.

OTOH, being just 10 dtons and without crew needs, you can fit many of them on a carrier (or an improvised one, just with cargo space)...

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Against high TL (and so high FC) enemies armed with bays, you're probably right, though if they have to use their bays against your drones you have already won something.

Don't need high FC or bays to kill it. It can easily kill itself...

With the barrage table and a DM of +2[skill] +2[FC] +1[HighYield] +3[IWD] -9[Armour] +0[range] = -1 it would do damage on a roll of 4+ and kill average 0.83 fighters of its own kind every turn.


Against a medium reinforced fighter (40 Dt, Armour 14, Hull 15) with the same computer/software etc it would do damage on 9+ and do average 0.7 damage resulting in 0.36 hits slowly whittling away at the medium fighter. It would take 49 hits to destroy the medium fighter, so 136 attacks by light fighters.

With the same attack DM and a Particle barbette the medium fighter would kill average 0.97 light fighters.

A single medium fighter would easily kill 10, or even 15, light fighters...

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Against a medium reinforced fighter (40 Dt, Armour 14, Hull 15) with the same computer/software etc it would do damage on 9+ and do average 0.7 damage resulting in 0.36 hits slowly whittling away at the medium fighter.

This is of course completely wrong, sorry... I haven't used MgT1 for a few years and seems to have forgotten the details.


10 light drones forming a single barrage against a medium reinforced drone (40 Dt, Armour 14, Hull 15, and the same computer/software etc) would do damage on 9+ resulting in a 17% chance of kill and 0.22 Hits (if they don't kill outright).

The medium drone would be better off using Evade-2 (trivial added cost) instead of FC-2:
10 light drones forming a single barrage against a medium reinforced drone would do damage on 11+ resulting in a 3% chance of kill and 0.11 Hits (if they don't kill outright).

The medium drone would have about 86% chance of surviving against (and killing) 10 light drones, and about 73% chance of surviving against 15 light drones. We would need about 19 light drones to have a 50% chance of killing the medium drone (with horrendous losses).



The simplest way of enhancing the light drone would be to increase the armour to 14, making it much harder to kill.

The medium drone would then have to roll 8+ (42%) on the barrage to kill it. We would need about 16 light drones to have a 50% chance of killing the medium drone (with horrendous losses). Eh.



Note that I did not take Armour hits in consideration (reducing defence against subsequent attacks), so the medium drone isn't quite as robust as I have calculated.