Thread: MGT Only: duel drive fighter
View Single Post
  #5  
Old May 15th, 2019, 04:15 PM
Xerxeskingofking's Avatar
Xerxeskingofking Xerxeskingofking is offline
Citizen: SOC-13
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Blandford Forum
Posts: 855
Gallery : 0
Xerxeskingofking Citizen+Xerxeskingofking Citizen+
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by whartung View Post
The important thing to note here is that the addition of the 1G drive is probably not as much of a performance hinderance in space combat as one might think, nor is it particularly more expensive (I don't know exactly how much the drives adds to the cost, but at 11MCr already, the fighter is not particularly expensive).

The only real tangible costs outside of the vehicle itself are any changes necessary to adapt any carriers to handle the new fighter. The question also becomes the value of the fighter in terms of long duration missions in contrast to just being the teeth of a carrier along with it's support elements.

While a fighter can last for weeks in space, is it actually comfortable to do so.

In TNE parlance, the fighter has 24 G Turns of fuel, with a 6G drive. TNE Turns are 1/2 hour. So, as this fighter has fuel to burn 6G for 2 hours, and 4 turns at 6 G, or 24 G Turns total.

The M-Drive gives the fighter significant loiter capability, even for short duration patrols, while using the reaction engine essentially as an "afterburner" of sorts.

Plus it gets to come home after it runs out of reaction mass.
the M drive itself costs 0.8Mcr (ie 800,000Cr). without it I could just about get by with 1 ton of P plant, saving another 0.5 Mcr. so, at most, 1.3Mcr, or less than the cost of 6 standard missiles.


the point is that a R drive only fighter cannot loiter for very long, as its limited by its fuel (in MgT space combat turns are 6 minutes long, so it has 120 G-turns of fuel by that standard), so a carrier commander would want to keep his R drive fighters in the hanger as long as possible, to preserve fuel, and wont be running any sort of serious patrols, whereas with M drives, you can hold off at long range, launch the fighters and let them get shot up, and also have a significant scouting/screening force out without burning all the fuel up.


Quote:
1. The reaction rockets can act as adterburners, which means you can run both drives simultaneously.

2. Pilots shouldn't have longer than twelve hour shifts, sixteen exceptionally, and as I recall, the cockpit's only good for twenty four; I'm not sure for how long the diaper's good for.

3. I tend to use them as point defence interceptors, or short range (ground) attack craft; their usefulness in other roles is really defined by the size of their fuel tanks.
indeed, a cockpit alone would be 12ish hours, but as its got a full bridge, and a stateroom, so their is enough room for 2 pilots, a bunk, a toilet, a shower, a microwave, maybe a comfy chair and a flatscreen….. Enough space for 2 crew to function more or less normally for a few days, on a long in-system burn or as a the rear guard of a fleet. With the M drive, they have the ability to loiter like that, which is something that R drive fighters just cant do, and while this sort of ability is standard at higher tech levels, it would be revolutionary at TL9, when it is first introduced.

In combat, the 2nd pilot could take over sensor/EW or maybe gunner, leaving the other guy free to concentrate on just flying.

you have a rules quote or something to back up the add together rule? i've not seen that, just curious if it was a common sense thing or was written down somewhere.

Quote:
Plus it gets to come home after it runs out of reaction mass
yhea, the separate fuel for the P-plant was a design feature, to ensure it could do just that (and thus spend all its R drive fuel on the attack run)
__________________
Then it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an` Tommy, 'ow's yer soul? "
But it's " Thin red line of 'eroes " when the drums begin to roll
The drums begin to roll, my boys, the drums begin to roll,
O it's " Thin red line of 'eroes, " when the drums begin to roll.

"Tommy", Rudyard Kipling
Reply With Quote