ah. Now I see it. yep
Those are two-stage missiles, correct. Which means that you are looking at the bus, not at the warhead. The second stage (the warhead) is much faster.
The X-Wing VIII (given above) uses Equalizer III 2034 missiles.
The Equalizer III is size 6, speed 77,500 kps, range 174 million km.
It carries an upper stage called Equalizer III Warhead.
The Warhead is size 2.4 (so the empty lower-stage bus is size 3.6, making a total of size 6), with a 9 factor bang, seperation range 150,000 km, speed 110,000 kps, to-hit vs a 10,000 kps enemy target 97% (!), ECCM-6 and active terminal guidance +60%.
Very deadly.
2 Likes
Notice that those missile screen-shots show a higher speed and a bigger bang, because our tech has advanced since the missiles were first designed. The actual speeds and bang are given in the missile’s NAME… 9 bang, 77k speed, 171 m-km range, etc.
Regarding the Fighters’ maintenance - when launched, their clock will be at zero and the first IFR (incremental failure rate) is only 0.6%. They aren’t going to stay out five days for a second malfunction check, so the lack of maintenance parts is irrelevant.
The fact that they carry only two missiles instead of four makes little difference since they PACK into a hangar more than twice as densely as a 500-ton Fighter. An 8,000-ton Hangar can hold 38 of them (with two missiles each), instead of holding only 16 500-ton Fighters. The proper basis of comparison is not fighter vs fighter, but hangar-load of fighters vs hangar-load of fighters. That’s 38 of these fighters (76 missiles) vs 16 of the 500-ton fighter version (64 missiles).
They are FAR more survivable than the larger fighters. Less massive, and therefore faster and harder to hit. The high speed gets them in-and-out of the target area faster, so they are exposed to fewer enemy shots and can return to the carrier and re-arm more quickly. Smaller TCS (Target Cross Section) and therefore harder to detect or lock onto at firing range. More than twice as many of them per squadron (38 vs 16) and so they are a more dispersed target for enemy fire… he needs to score more than twice as many hits to destroy the squadron.
The choice between large and small fighters is not nearly as clear-cut as you suggest. In fact, I choose smaller, not larger.
2 Likes
There is some truth to your words, though I struggle to find the practical advantage with bombers still.
Personally, my bombers do not get close to the enemies PD umbrella, having a 36m ranged ASM. As such, while having twice the strikefighters is nice, each of the 500 ton strike fighters carry three times the missiles, thus having a better alpha strike potential.
If we take 8000 hangar budget for example,
at 2 missiles per 200 ton fighters, we get 40 fighters or 80 missiles.
at 6 missiles per 500 ton fighters, we get 16 fighters or 96 missiles.
Yes, they are twice as slow, but they are not superiority fighters, they are bombers. they don’t get close to the enemies’ pd umbrella. In my eyes, in the bomber category, they are clear winners,
AWACS, and SupFighters are a different matter.
Not convinced.
Why do you think that PD is the only likely threat to your Fighters?
I’ve been playing a consultation campaign on our Paradox wargames forum, and the NPR that attacked us uses size-12 anti-ship missiles aimed with a range-55,000,000 km res-1 RADAR against our fighters. This is a significant threat even at max range.
The greater numbers, smaller size and higher speed give us a decent chance even against a higher-tech opponent. Your 500-ton bombers seem to be designed on the assumption that they aren’t going to get shot at. That might work in your campaign (so far) but not in mine.
Being twice as slow also entails a train of consequences… it takes longer to fly out to attack position, you must spend a longer time exposed to enemy fire (if he can reach you) and longer to return to the carrier. So you get off fewer strikes per day. Anyone who gets a shot at you is more likely to hit a large, slow target… and each fighter lost is six missile tubes lost instead of two.
4 Likes
I did not consider that.
With the assumption that the enemy could reach the strike group at longer ranges, the smaller faster variant has indeed greater flexibility and survivability.
Every other countermeasure I can think of requires changes to doctrine and the carrier fleet. Greater PD support, greater asm ranges, bigger sensor ship…
These are resources that may better be spent elsewhere.
Our current campaign has gone through a number of changes.
We are now using a Gunship doctrine instead of a stand-off Carrier doctrine.
The game is approaching its 100th year (!) having started in early 1948 (an alternate-reality Roswell encounter, where it really was a UFO) and is now in late 2042.
The game has been running nearly two-and-a-half real-life years. Started in version 2.5
You might not be able to access the thread, if you don’t have a Paradox log-in.
It’s free, though.
2 Likes
Why the change to gunship doctrine? What do you consider a gunship?
Why the change to Gunship doctrine?
Just a player choice. We used Carrier + missile + PD doctrine in our last two forum games, and we just wanted to try something completely different.
Our Gunships use Lasers. Spinal-mounted lasers on the smaller warships (FAC-sized to Destroyer-sized) and turreted multi-barrel 30cm Lasers on the Battlecruisers.
Gunship doctrine is HARD. You need enough of a speed advantage to over-haul and catch the fleeing enemy ships, which will be trying to stand off and hammer you with missiles.
You need enough PD fire to defeat massed missile attacks. In our game we were typically being hammered with 140 size-12 bang-18 missiles per salvo, with a range of 230 million km and very high to-hit numbers. Five or six salvos before their magazines were empty.
It was brutal.
We finally beat them with MASSED point defense - an outer envelope of AMM-PD missiles, followed by an inner envelope of ranged PD fire from light DP (Dual Purpose, anti-missile and anti-ship) lasers, then a point-blank defense by massed Gauss PD, with decoys to draw off some of the missiles that penetrated. We also had the largest shields we could design, to absorb any missiles that leaked through.
4 Likes
This is fairly typical of first-gen fighters in my campaigns:
Sabre class Fighter 250 tons 6 Crew 93.1 BP TCS 5 TH 35 EM 0
14000 km/s Armour 1-3 Shields 0-0 HTK 2 Sensors 0/0/0/0 DCR 0-0 PPV 2
Maint Life 7.17 Years MSP 23 AFR 5% IFR 0.1% 1YR 1 5YR 12 Max Repair 52.5 MSP
Lieutenant Commander Control Rating 1
Intended Deployment Time: 1 months CDE 30% Morale Check RequiredMagnetic Fusion Drive EP70.00 (1) Power 70.0 Fuel Use 362.36% Signature 35.000 Exp 17%
Fuel Capacity 5,700 Litres Range 1.13 billion km (22 hours at full power)Gauss Cannon R400-33.00 (1x4) Range 40,000km TS 14,000 km/s Accuracy Modifier 33.00% ROF 5
Direct Fire Control R40-TS10000 (SW) (70%) (1) Range 40,000 km TS 10,000 km/s ECCM-2Active Search Sensor AS3-R1 (70%) (1) GPS 3 Range 3.5m km MCR 317.9k km RES 1 ECCM-2 EH-30
I usually don’t start working on carriers until TL4-6ish because of all the efficiency issues low TL smallcraft have. Typically I’ll run light interceptors similar to this, heavy fighters with box launchers, and a few recon fighters. If I’m getting a lot of spoiler aggression around Sol I might go into fighters earlier just to spam disposable fodder at them from orbital hangers.
1 Like