CT fighters

A thread of 2 messages, 27 January 1994 to 28 January 1994, in the order they were sent.

#6719 CT fighters

[unnamed sender] · 27 January 1994

As Lee pointed out, High Guard fighters with a small computer are easy prey
for anything better. In fact, my fighters were at the wrong side of that
equation from his fighters at the beginning of Steve's TCS campaign, before
the Alliance.

And now, the War Channel presents, "Wings of the Neubayern Federation." :-)

FA-2B Asp  FH-0606C51-000000-00003-0 MCr74.42  45 tons
bearing                          1   Crew=1
batteries                        1   TL=12(13)
Fuel=6. EP=6. Agility=6.

Has fuel scoops, bridge, and small craft stateroom.

The Asp was the mainstay of the NFN fighter force when the TCS campaign
ended, although it was being phased out of service. Over 2000 were also in
service with the Alliance Navy. The Asp was actually only marginally better
than Sansterre's Barracuda fighter, but it was more than capable against the
fighters the Alliance faced early on. Since the Alliance couldn't count on
the rest of the Cluster keeping their junk fighters, several heavy fighter
designs were built.

FA-5 Krait  FH-0606G81-000000-00004-0 MCr175.25  90 tons
bearing                           1   Crew=1
batteries                         1   TL=12(14)
Cargo=.41. Fuel=7.49. EP=14.4. Agility=6

Has fuel scoops, bridge, and stateroom. The Krait uses some non-standard
technology that was developed by the more technologically advanced members of
the Alliance, specifically an NH3 fuel system and a dual missile turret
system.

The Krait was slowly being phased in as the new standard NFN fighter when the
game ended, a process made slow by the great expense of refitting carriers
that were built for 50-ton fighters. Although it normally carried only the
pilot, it could also carry a gunner who would guide in extended-range
missiles (a Sansterrean invention), which could be launched from ships well
outside normal weapon range. It's capabilities are very similar to
Sansterre's Pike fighters, which carried two missile gunners instead of the
second turret. The Krait, and the other fighters like it, were so superior to
non-Alliance fighters that they could be expected to go up against ten times
their number or more and come out victorious with no losses. However, they
were not the end of Alliance fighter development.

FA-5B Streak Krait  FH-0606(C)N81-000000-00004-0 MCr185.45  90 tons
bearing                                      1   Crew=1
batteries                                    1   TL=12(15)
Fuel=19.96. EP=19.8. Agility=6(12).

The Streak Krait is outwardly identical to the Krait, but with the additon of
a TL15 enhanced output maneuver drive and afterburning power
plant--technology that was still in the prototype stage on St. Hilaire when
the game ended. When using afterburners (that is, using the power plant as a
fusion rocket), it could reach 12G acceleration and Agility 12. In practice,
it wouldn't need to go above 10G/agility 10 to be essentially unhittable with
conventional weapons. It carries 9.66 tons of fuel dedicated to the
afterburners, enough for almost 16 hours at 10G. St. Hilaire's Shark fighter
program was working on a similar fighter.

The NFN Fighter Design Bureau had designed the Streak Krait fighter knowing
that the TL15 drive systems would not be available for a year or more, and
went ahead with production of the Krait in the meantime. Krait fighters were
to be converted into Streak Kraits as soon as enough replacement engines
became available. Afterburning fighters would doubtless become the standard
during the Cluster Liberation War against the Imperium.

Although afterburning craft (there were plans for cruisers and battlecruisers
as well) seem invincible by virtue of their high agility, there are
apparently some weapons that were being developed at the end of the TCS game
that could hit them. What those weapons were exactly remain a mystery.

                        Kenneth G. Hagler
 _________________________________________________________________
|            [email removed]             |  My insurance company  |
|             [phone removed]            |    is Beretta U.S.A.   |
|   PGP 2.3 key available on request     |                        |
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
|   ...study of the military arts will make one who is naturally  |
|   clever more so and one who is born somewhat dull rather less  |
|   so.     --Daidoji Yuzan Shigesuke, _Budo Shoshinshu_          |
|_________________________________________________________________|

#6724 RE: CT fighters

Steve Gibbons · 28 January 1994 · reply to #6719

In Bundle #540, Archive-Message-Number #6719; [email removed] wrote:

#As Lee pointed out, High Guard fighters with a small computer are easy prey
#for anything better. In fact, my fighters were at the wrong side of that
#equation from his fighters at the beginning of Steve's TCS campaign, before
#the Alliance.

Agreed, although it really is a cost/benefit equation.  I can bring three Ape
class fighters to bear for _each_ model 5 computer that your fighters are
equipped with, or 5 Apes to your Asp.  (Really only 4, but much closer to 5.)

In other words, you'll hit one target on an six or better (penetration on a
zero or better.)  Hits will be scattered on the Surface damage table from 9-19,
centered around 14, with fuel hits being the most critical (I'd require a
Jump-drive hit to affect the Ape's capacitor, though), so at the very worst an
Ape would last three turns (assuming two weapon-2 hits on the fusion gun, and
one on the missile.)

Note that the TL-15 ape will last substatially longer than the TL-12 variety,
but what did you expect?...  :)

In the mean time, you've got four fusion guns that are'nt going to hit you,
ever.

Excellent analasyis, and something I noticed quite a while back, but forgot
sometime between then and now.

I think I'll have to go and re-design most of my small-craft (again...)

Did you include the bridge in your designs?  I haven't reverse enginerred them,
so I'm just wondering...  I'd guess that yes you did, because: by the time
computers start requiring energy points to maintain, it becomes cheaper/more
space efficient to include a bridge in the design.

#The Streak Krait is outwardly identical to the Krait, but with the additon of
#a TL15 enhanced output maneuver drive and afterburning power
#plant--technology that was still in the prototype stage on St. Hilaire when
#the game ended. When using afterburners (that is, using the power plant as a
#fusion rocket), it could reach 12G acceleration and Agility 12. In practice,
#it wouldn't need to go above 10G/agility 10 to be essentially unhittable with
#conventional weapons.

Actually, _my_ extrapolation of the M-Drive tble shows that M-12 would be
available by TL-11.  Admittedly, there are only a few data points, and the
curve could be just about anything, but my assumption was three-Gs per TL.

#Although afterburning craft (there were plans for cruisers and battlecruisers
#as well) seem invincible by virtue of their high agility, there are
#apparently some weapons that were being developed at the end of the TCS game
#that could hit them. What those weapons were exactly remain a mystery.

Do tell?  I once designed a vessel that was "invulerable" do to it's agility.
I wound up compromising on the design, since I wanted it to be able to perform
in atmosphere as well as hydrosphere, and I didn't think that pulling 10 Gs
underwater was advisable, so I added lots of armor and trimmed the maneuver
drive back into the realm of the standard tables.

Note that one can still design TL 14 craft that are impervious to "small arms"
(anything but a spinal mount, or a nuclear missile.) based on armor factor
alone.

[All of the above related to CT/HG, and had nothing to do with MT or TNE.]

A question for GDW: Why are there arbitrary limits on the range of available
drives?  Rather than having to extrapolate, I'd really like to see official
numbers/ratings posted or in print.  (Thanks Loren!)

- --
[email removed]