Fighter Designs

[Roey_Michaeli]

This thread is dedicated towards Fighter designs and strike group compositions.

I shall start. This here is my first ever fighter, having no clue on how or what anything does.

As you can see, Gauss turret (!!), with a 10K km range, which is practically useless as PD., basically wasted tonnage. 1.7 Bkm, a fine range, though the speed is a bit lackluster.

But for a first fighter, it’s cute.

Stockpiled 100 of those on an anchorage like 50 years ago, still haven’t met any hostiles, but that’s no reason not to reiterate on the design:

Meet the Buzzard II. The engine is practically the same, just up-teched. The missiles were removed, and the ineffective gauss replaced with a longer ranged laser. The sensor suite you see is a standardized package, replicated across my fleet.

To summarize, a standard superiority / pd fighter. Let’s meet its brother:

The Falcon. Pure bomber, 5 missile launchers instead of the Buzzard’s 3, same sensor suite and engine as the Buzzard II. Though, less fuel tanks, and so, range.

In essence, the mediocre multirole Buzzard was replaced with a Superiority Fighter Buzzard II and a Bomber Falcon.

Another age old saying proven correct, by good old trial and error
Reason why I keep the sensor suite on all of my fighters? 20 tons, and they would make a good scouting screen in a pinch, and to remove the logistics of a dedicated AWACS fighter. Maybe, when I see the need, I’ll add a dedicated AWACS.

[Eretic_KB]

I think turret on buzzard was useless, TS for fixed weapons is ship speed and it already have 9.6k. I think it was better to replace turret with fixed and invest liberated mass into engine.

[Roey_Michaeli]

Replacing 1 box launcher with fuel, quadruples operational range, allowing exerting influence in a much larger radius than before: 2bkm.
It is a tradeoff of range vs strike capability. Considering this allows more fighters from different fleets to assist from further away, thus increasing effective coverage, the tradeoff seems more ambiguous.

[Roey_Michaeli]

A dedicated AMM interceptor, ability to fire 30 AMMs at 14 targets simultaneously.

[GrandNord]

To be completely honest, your fighters seem really slow for your tech level. 12kkm/s is something I would expect at gas-core to ion drive tech level. With a magnetic fusion drive I’d expect something in the neighbourhood of 20-25kkm/s.

You likely either need to increase engine boost or increase the ratio of engine in your craft. For the boost, I generally go between 175 and 200% for bombers and between 225 and 300% for fighters (depending on their role).

Armament seems fine when it comes to missiles. If you want to use a gauss cannon you shouldn’t make it turreted, use your ship’s speed to increase tracking speed, putting it on a turret is a waste of tons. 10cm laser is fine, though I prefer railguns for my space superiority fighters personnaly. Railguns are also pretty good for point defense interceptors.

You have too many sensors on your fighters, it’s better to use dedicated sensor crafts and just put a small 5t active sensor as backup on your armed fighters (though it also depends a bit on their role). The name of the game is weight efficiency if you want good fighters.

For the fire controls, your bombers MFC are too big, on ships it’s fine, but for small crafts that’s unused weight. Additionnaly, if you’re using bombers it’s generally not necessary to have long range missiles, since the bombers themselves should be too small to be tergeted easily by anti-ship MFCs and shoot from outside AMM range. I find that 10Mkm is generally fine for bomber missiles. Though of course if you’re using the same missiles for your ships and your bombers it changes the equation, since having simpler logistics is always beneficial.

One thing for the MFCs, one MFC in point defense mode can fire at an unlimited number of targets, you don’t need 14 MFCs for your interceptor, one is enough. You can configure the number of missiles sent by target salvo.

For the BFCs, the ones for the lasers are always going to be pretty big, this is the problem with laser fighters. Personnaly I prefer to use lasers only on "Heavy fighters) (bigger than 500t so FACs and with a bit of armor, fighting at range and falling back when the armor is going to be pierced). Otherwise I use railgun fighters with 10kkm range and go in direct contact.

For the PD BFCs I think you need to use 100kkm range, other wise the to-hit chance will drop, since I think shooting down missile is done at 10kkm (someone correct me If I’m wrong).

You can also drop the deployment time a bit. Scout craft might want to loiter a bit but for fighters and bombers it’s generally not needed. I generally use 0.1 deployment time.

[Roey_Michaeli]

Thank you for the review!
With the collapse of the Previous Forum, information and best practices are hard to come by.

Regarding deployment times, these deployments are optimized to add the least weight, while giving the most time. Adding even 0.001 more would increase the weight of Crew Quarters by 2 tons.

Regarding missile range, these are carefully optimized size 6s, used globally through every size 6 ASM.

Regarding fighter speed, these were the technological limits at the time. Even now I am a bit behind on EP boost tech.

Why railgun? Correct me if I’m wrong, but a missile traveling 40Km/s will punch through those before they have a chance to fire at all.

Is there a reason why missile interdiction can’t occur before the 10Km range? AMM have a much higher range, so for the DFC family to be limited to 10Kkm seems a bit arbitrary for me.

Anycase, Here are the updated designs:

Removed 15 tons of sensors, and 20~ tons of fuel, resulting in 1.5 times the launchers per bomber. 1.25 Bkm is a fine enough range, big enough for entire smaller systems.

Removed 15 tons of sesors, 5 tons of fuel, 65 tons of MFC, added 10 AMM launchers, 1.25 times the intercepting power per fighter.

Removed 15 tons of sensors, upped the EP boost by another 50, added another 15 tons of engine, resulting in a ~5Km/s increase in engine power.
Technology upgrades resulted in a higher baseline of DFC, allowing of finetuning of TS and Range.

[GrandNord]

@Roey_Michaeli

Regarding deployment times, these deployments are optimized to add the least weight, while giving the most time. Adding even 0.001 more would increase the weight of Crew Quarters by 2 tons.

If you can’t shave off more weight then it’s good.

@Roey_Michaeli

Regarding missile range, these are carefully optimized size 6s, used globally through every size 6 ASM.

As I mentionned, it makes sense to accept some ineficiencies somewhere if it results in logistical (or micromanagement :p) advantages. Having the same size 6 missile everywhere is a very good reason.

@Roey_Michaeli

Regarding fighter speed, these were the technological limits at the time. Even now I am a bit behind on EP boost tech.

EP boost techs are relatively cheap and massively impact fighter and missile speeds. If you are using a fighter or missile heavy doctrine, I heavily suggest researching them early.

@Roey_Michaeli

Why railgun? Correct me if I’m wrong, but a missile traveling 40Km/s will punch through those before they have a chance to fire at all.

Railguns, gauss or laser, they all function the same when used in point defense mode. When a missile gets close (I think at 10kkm), each weapon under a BFC in “point blank defensive fire” mode that is available will attempt to fire on the missile according to the parameters chosen (priority and shots per target).

The to-hit chances are calculated according to the tracking speed against the missile speed and, in the case of the gauss cannon, the to-hit modifier (half size gauss cannon gives a *0.5 modifier for example).

The advantage of gauss cannons is that they can be turreted, so you can use the highest tracking speed available to reduce the tracking speed vs missile speed difference, but on a ship with a speed comparable to your max tracking speed (which is generally the case with fighters), you don’t need turrets, since the max tracking speed you can use without turrets is equal to the ship speed. A gauss cannon with a modifier of 1 is 300t (with a number of shots according to what you researched, at this level generally 4-5), a 4 shot railgun (with no to-hit modifier, so no reduction) is 150t. With fighters with a speed approaching your tracking speed, railguns are clearly superior.

@Roey_Michaeli

Is there a reason why missile interdiction can’t occur before the 10Km range? AMM have a much higher range, so for the DFC family to be limited to 10Kkm seems a bit arbitrary for me.

There are several point defense modes (fleet organisation window, ship combat tab):

• Area defense: A weapon with a BFC in Area defense mode that is set as “firing” will attempt to fire on missiles within its range. Pretty useless with short range weapons, can be somewhat usefull on forward elements with long range, fast firing weapons if they are not the ones being fired upon
• Ranged defensive fire: If I remember correctly, On the increment during which the missiles arrive at a set range from your ships, the weapons under a BFC in this mode will attempt to fire on them. Used primarily to defend agaisnt bomb pumped laser warhead (they detonate at a set range and fire a laser at your ships, look it up, it’s a real concept and is super cool).
• Point blank defensive fire: On the increment during which the missiles arrive at 10kkm (if I remeber correctly) from your fleet, the weapons under a BFC in this mode will attempt to fire on it.
• Point blank defensive fire (self ony): Same, but the ship only target the missiles going for it, and not the fleet.
• Missile per target (1-unl): For MFC only, will set the MFC in AMM mode and will fire the number of AMM specified at each missile.
• Engagement priority: set which weapon fire first
• BFC fire concentration: Set how many shot to fire per missile (this is really important since you need to be carefull about either over or underkilling missiles, potentially causing leakers to go through the PD screen and strike your ships).

Ideally you want to have a layered approach to point defense:

• First the AMMs will fire on the missiles entering their range
• Then if they have not all been eliminated BFC in point denfense mode will engage according to the rules you chose (see above)
  • I don’t remember the order of the next two steps
• Missiles that leak through will then be fire upon by CIWS (they are essentially in Point blank defensive fire (self ony), and fire on one missile after another after destroying it until they exhaust their shots)
• Decoys are deployed if the total size of missiles that went though PD is higher than the limit set and the missiles have a chance to hit the decoys instead of your ships according to the decoy size. Decoys are only really usefull against massed missile attacks.

Edit: Seeing your new fighter designs, they seem to have improved quite a bit. As your tech improves you can find ways to increase their speeds.

[GrandNord]

I think I am mistaken about the ranged defensive fire mode. It might be that it just fire at the missile when it detonates?

It should be only applicable against bomb pumped laser missiles I think.

[Roey_Michaeli]

In any case, thank you for the comprehensive explanation!

[xenoscepter]

Turreted twin gauss reduces the crew requirements over two independently mounted ones. Likewise, with a tracking of zero, the turret will inherit ship tracking.

EDIT: It would seem I might be incorrect on the crew savings. Further testing required.

[xenoscepter]

This is, admittedly a MaxTech Design, but on the Old Forums I had a version for Composite/Ion tech level. The 3 layers of armor is debatable, and could be stripped off for more speed. Especially at lower techs. The To-Hit values at 2.8% per shot at 16 shots for a basic no-bonus crew when firing at targets moving 270,000km/s at a range of 60,000km (max gun range)

Twin gauss is fine for missile interception. And the 3 layer armor here is so it can eat a 10cm Laser at 10,000km and not immediately die. EDIT: Worth noting that the turret is ALSO armored, bringing the HTK of the guns from 0 up to 2. MaxTech isn’t really emblematic of “proper” design, and the Composite/Ion is significantly more austere. XD

[BlueEmu]

I typically use MUCH smaller fighters, armed with missiles.

Typically less than half that mass.

… Anti-ship strike fighter:

X-Wing VIII class Strikefighter 210 tons 1 Crew 298 BP TCS 4 TH 22 EM 0
42911 km/s Armour 1-3 Shields 0-0 HTK 1 Sensors 0/0/0/0 DCR 0-0 PPV 1.8
Maint Life 0 Years MSP 0 AFR 41% IFR 0.6% 1YR 27 5YR 409 Max Repair 225 MSP
Magazine 12 / 0
Lieutenant Commander Control Rating 1
Intended Deployment Time: 5.7 days Morale Check Required

2033 Gas Core AM Drive EP180.00 HS-1.5 (1) Power 180 Fuel Use 804.98% Signature 21.60 Explosion 30%
Fuel Capacity 14,000 Litres Range 1.49 billion km (9 hours at full power)

Size 6.00 Box Launcher 1973 (2) Missile Size: 6 Hangar Reload 122 minutes MF Reload 20 hours
2033 Missile Fire Control FC112-R100 (5%) ECCM-6 (1) Range 112.4m km Resolution 100 ECCM-6
Equalizer III 2034 9-77k-171m-176th (2) Speed: 77,500 km/s End: 37.3m Range: 174.6m km WH: 0 Size: 6 TH: 258/155/77

Missile to hit chances are vs targets moving at 3000 km/s, 5000 km/s and 10,000 km/s

This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and planetary interaction
This design is classed as a Fighter for auto-assignment purposes

… Anti-FAC / air-superiority Fighter:

X-Wing VIII-AS class Strikefighter 210 tons 1 Crew 298 BP TCS 4 TH 22 EM 0
42911 km/s Armour 1-3 Shields 0-0 HTK 1 Sensors 0/0/0/0 DCR 0-0 PPV 1.8
Maint Life 0 Years MSP 0 AFR 41% IFR 0.6% 1YR 27 5YR 409 Max Repair 225 MSP
Magazine 12 / 0
Lieutenant Commander Control Rating 1
Intended Deployment Time: 5.7 days Morale Check Required

2033 Gas Core AM Drive EP180.00 HS-1.5 (1) Power 180 Fuel Use 804.98% Signature 21.60 Explosion 30%
Fuel Capacity 14,000 Litres Range 1.49 billion km (9 hours at full power)

Size 6.00 Box Launcher 1973 (2) Missile Size: 6 Hangar Reload 122 minutes MF Reload 20 hours
2034 Missile Fire Control FC64-R19 (5%) (1) Range 64.6m km Resolution 19 ECCM-6
Equalizer 2030 (2) Speed: 60,000 km/s End: 38m Range: 137.3m km WH: 0 Size: 6 TH: 200/120/60

Missile to hit chances are vs targets moving at 3000 km/s, 5000 km/s and 10,000 km/s

This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and planetary interaction
This design is classed as a Fighter for auto-assignment purposes

… AWACS (RADAR) Fighter

X-Wing VIII-R19 class Strikefighter 210 tons 3 Crew 538.4 BP TCS 4 TH 22 EM 0
42911 km/s Armour 1-3 Shields 0-0 HTK 2 Sensors 0/0/0/0 DCR 0-0 PPV 0
Maint Life 7.76 Years MSP 160 AFR 4% IFR 0.0% 1YR 5 5YR 70 Max Repair 307.2 MSP
Lieutenant Commander Control Rating 1
Intended Deployment Time: 5.7 days Morale Check Required

2033 Gas Core AM Drive EP180.00 HS-1.5 (1) Power 180 Fuel Use 804.98% Signature 21.60 Explosion 30%
Fuel Capacity 15,000 Litres Range 1.6 billion km (10 hours at full power)

2034 Active Search Sensor AS72-R19 (5%) (1) GPS 1824 Range 72.3m km Resolution 19

This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and planetary interaction
This design is classed as a None for auto-assignment purposes

[Roey_Michaeli]

Interesting.

[xenoscepter]

gosh darn it, replied wrong. sorry, new to this forum software.

[xenoscepter]

A more “sensible” design. I threw it together in a hurry, but this design is up-to-date for 2.7.1 whereas the one posted prior is not. Treat as more of a “proof of concept” or “template” as the design taken as-is isn’t… great. Ceramic Composite, Ion Drive, 250% engine boost, Beam FCS Max Range 64,000km, Beam FCS Base Tracking 4,000km/s

BLAHBLAHSPAMFILTERBEGONE LOL

[Roey_Michaeli]

Personally, apart from the awacs, I would rather use 500 tons fighters.
The 250 ones are simply too underarmed. If it was a superiority fighter in the truest sense of the word, sure, doubling the speed is significant. Doubling the fighter scouts in a given hangar is also significant. But for Strike fighters, less so, and for amm fighters, less so.

[xenoscepter]

@BlueEmu
Now, as I meant to reply something different to you. XD

Can you post the missiles? They seem to have a Warhead of Zero, which means either they are a two-stage missile or they have no boom in the toob.

Likewise, your anti-fighter missiles are showing only a roughly 20~22% chance to hit against even your own fighters. Two ASMs on a 210 ton platform isn’t awful, but it’s… pretty bad. I’d shoot for like… four.

5, almost 6 days of life support seems very overkill for your maintenance and fuel allotments. Are you playing with maintenance failures off by chance?

[xenoscepter]

For anti-missile duty, weight of fire is important. Hence why I specified these were anti-missile craft. I use them primarily to supplement my other anti-missile defenses. Sometimes I send them after enemy shipping. Or scouts.

[Roey_Michaeli]

Deployment time is at the edge of the first grade of weight. adding 0.001 more dep time will add 2 tons.

For reference, they were designed when Warhead per MSP was 6, so the ASM hit for 9, and the amm hit for 1

[xenoscepter]

I was replying to BlueEmu. Their X-Wings have missiles without a warhead and 5.7 days of deployment with 0 MSP and like… 9 hours of fuel.