Fighters in YTU

[SGavorsky]

I've got a little side project going of designing a ship construction/space combat system from the ground-up (more as a mental exercise than anything else).

I've recently been thinking about the role of fighters (and other small attack craft) in fleet actions. Using the naval model from good 'ol Earth here, I'm thinking there are basically three reasons fighters are significant against main fleet elements:
</font>

• Speed: Aircraft are significantly faster than ocean-bound ships, thereby adding a crucial advantage to any engagement.</font>
• Strong Weaponry Compared to Size: With the availability of torpedos and the current generation of ASMs, aircraft can carry a weapon capable of delivering a fatal blow to main fleet elements.</font>
• Manueverability: Currently, I think this is a distant third in importance, but it does seem to matter that aircraft present a threat in a 540-degree area (360 horizontal + 180 vertical) compared to just a 360-degree area for surface engagements.</font>

In CT, these factors do not work out the same. Speed is less important because the differential is not as great (the relative difference between 1G and 6G, for example, is less than the difference between 30 knots and 287 knots for an example WWII battle). Manueverability is more complicated; all space vessels are operating in a 720-degree environment, but the ability of fighters to turn tighter might actually still help.

The real change, however, seems to be in weapons: CT small craft do not appear capable of delivering a significant "killer blow" to heavy warships because they lack items comparable to torpedoes and Exocet-type missiles. Certainly, later architecture books (FF&S, T20, etc.) made it possible to change this, but it appears the paradigm is fairly heavily set in Traveller circles: fighters are not of much use in major fleet engagements (despite their role in some of the sci-fi literature that inspired CT).

I'm looking for some different thoughts on this matter. Are fighters important against warships in YTU, or are they relegated to recon and small vessel (read: PC-ships) interdiction duties? Why do you choose to cast small craft in these roles?

 

[mike wightman]

Traveller fighters aren't aircraft analogues, they are more akin to torpedo boats.

They do, however, have a killer weapon, or at least in CT they do

The missile, built using the missiles special supplement, can be a ship killer.

 

[mike wightman]

So, how do I use fighters IMTU?

As long range interceptors - get to the enemy's missiles and fighters before they get too close.

As civilian ship shepherds - a 6G laser and missile armed fighter is a threat to most merchants.

As sensor pickets - the fighter is the eyes and ears of the fleet.

As forward observers - mothership launches the missile strike, fighters direct the missiles at range.

 

[SGavorsky]

Sigg:

The Missile Special Supplements is one of the "later" architecture books I had in mind (never seen it--it's one of the reasons I'm waiting on the lamentably delayed CT CDROM )

The difference between "aircraft" and "torpedo boats" is one of the items I'm trying to work through. At the surface, it seems pretty clear--except that torpedo boats were originally intended to take out at least destroyers, if not capital ships (laying aside their questionable historical efficiency in such roles for the moment...).

Even so, I think there is a tendency to assume that craft in the 10-20dT range are incapable of taking out major fleet elements. This seems to be the case for your own list (which mirrors my experience with a number of campaigns over the years).

I'm wondering if this is something that might have worked its way into Traveller thinking because of a lack of a "off-the-shelf" large-ship-killer weapon for this tonnage range in Book 2 or Book 5, more than anything else.

Another reason that just struck me is resources. Fighters/torpedo boats work on the expendable principle; they are "efficient" because a commander can balance occasional success with the cost-per-success. Perhaps this is an advantage that only becomes apparent over a longer military campaign.

 

[flykiller]

I'm looking for some different thoughts on this matter. Are fighters important against warships in YTU, or are they relegated to recon and small vessel (read: PC-ships) interdiction duties?

don't even have them. anything they can do, an SDB or rider can do better.

do have them as picket boats, however, because their smaller size makes them harder to detect. but they are also tremendously more vulnerable, being stuck out there away from the fleet, and thus see only limited use.

 

[Whipsnade]

Originally posted by Sulpicius:
Using the naval model from good 'ol Earth here...

Sulpicius,

That is your first mistake. 'Fighters' in space do not equate 'fighters' in an atmosphere.

There is no specific working analogy to be found in examining the operation of small craft moving through a medium and small craft moving through a vacuum. As you noted, but then failed to comprehend, the differences in speed, maneuverability, and weapons in each situation mean only the broadest of analogies can be drawn.

Now that the "Traveller fighters equate F/A-18 Hornet" idea has been dismissed, we can get down to talking about just how fighters can be used in Traveller.

First question you need to ask yourself is what tech level are you dealing with. At TLs below (roughly) 12 or 13, fighters are deadly in Traveller space combat. Even without the specialized missiles designed with S:3, fighters can mission kill all but the most skewed HG2 designs. In a series of 'smoke test' battles done at 'ct starships' over 6 years ago, a warship could be mission killed by as little as 65-70% of it's construction cost in simple fighters in a single combat round.

In HG2, fleet design choices and the combat resolutions that result resemble 'rock, paper, scissors'. Each broad design choice trumps a second and is trumped in turn by a third. Tech levels add another wrinkle to this merry-go-round with the choices and results changing as certain TL 'breaks' are reached.

At lower TLs, with their lack of nuclear dampers, smaller computers, costly armor, and low energy dense power plants, nuclear missiles rule. Small, high agility, fighters armed with nucs can easily inflict ten fuel-1 hits on all but the most heavily armored vessels. Vessels either need fighter protection; remaining in the reserve until the enemy's number of fighters is low enough to face, or must carry so much armor and so many anti-missile tasked laser batteries as to compromise their offensive 'punch'.

As TL increases, nuclear dampers appear and slowly draw the fangs of the nuc missile. Larger computers; which only large +100dTon vessels can both carry and power, continue to add negative DMs to a fighter's 'to-hit' rolls. Armor costs less in both money and space limiting damage from the fighter's <9 factor batteries. Further along, power planet energy density increases enough to allow large, heavily armed and armored vessels to sport high agilities.

Around TL 12 or 13, depending on the opposing fleet's design choices, fighters begin to fail to damage opposing capital ships. They still can hurt smaller warships. More importantly, they can still badly hurt civilian ships.

Depending on the TL you want to discuss, fighters are either a fleet's 'arm of decision', nuisances as escort killers, or merely a threat to civilian shipping.

One high-TL role explored for fighters in TNE was as 'sensor extenders'. Fighters in this role act as additional eyes for capital ships helping develop and refine sensor and/or target locks. Think manned sensor drone.


Have fun,
Bill

P.S. IMTU, which is of the TL 15, Golden Era, CT variety, fighters are used in much the same way Sigg and Flykiller have already mentioned.

 

[BetterThanLife]

Much depends on the version of Traveller you are playing and the target you are intending to shoot. If your target has the equivalent of 10+ points of HG armor and a Nuclear Damper, for example, then regardless of the size of the target fighters are virtually useless.

 

[BetterThanLife]

Originally posted by flykiller:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I'm looking for some different thoughts on this matter. Are fighters important against warships in YTU, or are they relegated to recon and small vessel (read: PC-ships) interdiction duties?

don't even have them. anything they can do, an SDB or rider can do better.

do have them as picket boats, however, because their smaller size makes them harder to detect. but they are also tremendously more vulnerable, being stuck out there away from the fleet, and thus see only limited use. </font>[/QUOTE]Depends largely on the rule set. Sensor platforms may or may not be useful. They are quite a bit cheaper than SDBs for that role. (T20 they can't carry enough sensors to be useful in this role.)

One place they excell is Close Air support of ground troops.

 

[flykiller]

Depends largely on the rule set.

always.

They are quite a bit cheaper than SDBs for that role.

not if the SDB's come home and the fighters don't. it's lonely out there in front, and you never know what you're gonna find yourself vectoring through ....

 

[aramis]

IMTU, they serve several roles:

1) fleet recon
2) ground attack
3) Merchant escort to jump
4) anti-missile screening
5) COACC intercept
6) dropped attack (Ship jumps in, deposits fighters, retreats out system while fighters engage; if fighters losing, ship jumps out.)

 

[Icosahedron]

Depends largely on the ruleset:

Yep!

My house rules allow for the organisation of fighters into flights, squadrons and groups, whose combined firepower may be treated as a single battery.

I also allow for them to enter 'close range' where the target ship's larger weapons may not be able to bear. At close range there is an increased chance of finding chinks in the armour and dampers may not have sufficient flight time to lock on.

Fighters can prevent other fighters from reaching close range.

 

[Arthur Denger]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
Traveller fighters aren't aircraft analogues, they are more akin to torpedo boats.

They do, however, have a killer weapon, or at least in CT they do

The missile, built using the missiles special supplement, can be a ship killer.

I disagree with the torpedo boat analog. A major difference is in the crew size. Most fighters are single or two-person craft: torpedo boats had much larger crews. Not only do fighter aircraft have a much higher armament-to-mass ratio, but the lower crew-to-mass ratio makes them more nimble and less costly, (and therefore more expendable).

 

[Blue Ghost]

In our version of CT way back when they were hardly ever encountered. As GM my assumption on fighters was this; they were best used against certain sizes and classes of ships, but were probably woefully outmatched against larger vessels. That is to say fighters would do well against SDBs and/or patrol craft and other gunboats, and in significant numbers harrass slightly larger vessels, but wouldn't be of much use against anything larger.

Most of our space combat was done with the basic CT rules, which is how I was able to use this ruling.

Myself, I referred to the "Space Battleship Yamato" anime, "Star Wars" and the old "Battlestar Galactica" as a fighter combat template. No pun intended, but it was a very cinematic approach that suited our purposes.

 

[mbrinkhues]

Some uses for fighters IMHO/IMTU:

+ System interdiction and close range patrol

Fighters can run down civilian ships and some of the 20-50dt designs pack enough punch that 2-4 (IMHO the always operte in groups) can easily kill a smuggler/pirat. Most fighters can't go out more than a few hours but that is enough to control a planet's near space

+ Recon/Sensor plattform

Eyes beyond the fleet forcing any attackers to stage further out and spend more time in hiding

+ Ground support / Aerospace defence

Supporting your ground forces and attacking enemy landers coming in

+ Couriers

Fighters can act as fast couriers within a system


A lot of the jobs could be handled by an SDB and probably handeled better. But Fighters have two benefits:

+ They are much cheaper
+ They need less crew
+ They are more visible to the population on planet

In GT a GTL 11 (Traveler TL 14) 400dt SBD costs 316MCR and has a crew of 15 and carries four heavy lasers. A 20dt Gig has a crew of one or two, costs 11 MCr if armed with the same heavy laser. Even the 50dt / GTL 12(TTL15) heavy fighter is 2 Crew/42.5MCr craft compared to 14 Crew/318MCr

And finally: It is easier to store 12 fighters at 10dt each than 1 SDB at 400dt in a starship. Again GT says the 12 fighters in a general purpose hangar will take up 240dt while the SBD even in a specially fitted bay will take up 420dt.


The deficits of a fighter are

+ Less duration
+ More fragile

Even the above mentioned 50dt fighter with it's on-board cabin (or the MT 40dt Lance class) has a duration in days not weeks. And while heavily armored it still has less than one half the SDB's protection


As for the Fighters = Torpedo boats analogy, it depends on what Torpedo boat you use. If you go along the lines of WWI Torpedo boats it is wrong, those crafts where actually closer to destroyers, sometimes (germany) they WHERE destroyers in all but name (Zerstörer joining german navy parlance post WWI, germany operationg large Torpedo Boats in WWII). But if one takes WWII british MTB, US PT and German S-Boats (borderline, the last where quite big) the idea get's closer to the real world thingy. All three where fast, small crafts that would easily be killed and where basically disposeable.

As for Torpedo boats attacking larger surface units this did happen in the Skagerak/Jutland battle and modern day S-Boats with missiles definitly can do that. And since most WWI / WWII submarines where basically diving Torpedo boats, one might say that it did happen sucessfully quite a few times in both wars. German navy also had some success employing 20000 BRT torpedo platforms against merchant ships in WWII and even sucessfully employed ramming tactics against the RN.

 

[mike wightman]

Originally posted by Arthur Denger:

I disagree with the torpedo boat analog. A major difference is in the crew size. Most fighters are single or two-person craft: torpedo boats had much larger crews. Not only do fighter aircraft have a much higher armament-to-mass ratio, but the lower crew-to-mass ratio makes them more nimble and less costly, (and therefore more expendable).

In the real world they do, but the Traveller space fighter:
is no faster then the capital ships
is no more maneuverable than the capital ships
can remain on station for weeks or months (smallcraft cabin)
carries the same weapons as the capital ships, but at a much lower factor.

Modern aircraft are a really poor image to try and map onto space fighters in Traveller.
YMMV

 

[Jame]

IMTU, after TL-12, fighters kill corvettes, stop frigates and cripple destroyers, thereby opening the way for the smaller ships to kill, stop and cripple the larger vessels.

 

[Blue Ghost]

Note on WW2 analogy.

The second world war was a transitional period for naval combat. The BB had become all but obsolete. The idea of large armored weapons' platforms was giving way to carrier doctrine. As was alluded to (in Traveller parlance) a Nakamichi Zero or Hellcat were a lot cheaper to replace than a Nagato or Iowa class BB. That's kind of an extreme example, but I hope it reinformces Michael Brinkhues' point

Jame; that was our approach.

 

[BetterThanLife]

IMTU, there exist fighters, but for true naval combat, small craft are the 5000 ton Harpy II Light Attack Craft.

 

[Arthur Denger]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
In the real world they do, but the Traveller space fighter:
is no faster then the capital ships
is no more maneuverable than the capital ships
can remain on station for weeks or months (smallcraft cabin)
carries the same weapons as the capital ships, but at a much lower factor.

Modern aircraft are a really poor image to try and map onto space fighters in Traveller.
YMMV

You make a good point about the small craft cabin. I suppose I had the Rampart or some such in mind. All analogies eventually fail at some stage.

As for speed and agility, I've always believed the rules were skewed in favor of the BOBs (big ol' battlewagons). Their extreme mass would seem to me to preclude a high maneuverability/agility rating. It is difficult for me to imagine a Dreadnought or even a P.F. Sloan-class (regardless of their G-rating) being able to out-maneuver a Type-S or even a Gazelle, (essentially turning on a dime, as it were).

 

[whartung]

Originally posted by Arthur Denger:

As for speed and agility, I've always believed the rules were skewed in favor of the BOBs (big ol' battlewagons). Their extreme mass would seem to me to preclude a high maneuverability/agility rating. It is difficult for me to imagine a Dreadnought or even a P.F. Sloan-class (regardless of their G-rating) being able to out-maneuver a Type-S or even a Gazelle, (essentially turning on a dime, as it were).

There's two problems with this.

Maneverability has to do with, at a gross level, simply thrust to mass ratios. Since you can make a fighter with 6G of acceleration and 100Kton battle ship with 6G acceleration, guess what -- they're both, essentially, equally maneverable, since they both can apply the 6Gs in their appropriate directions. With proper scaling of the assorted thrusters and what not, maneuverability is the same.

With Jet fighters, it turns out that we pretty much get a certain amount of thrust from a given mass of motor. That thrust is usable for both small craft and larger craft. But then you also have structural concerns to deal with. It's far easier to make a F-18 handle high G loads than a 747. It can be done to a 747, but we simply don't because 747's aren't designed to do it.

Rather, we build F-18s to be as small as possible in order to accept the motors, and take the pilot, and deliver the ordnance.

Also, the smaller ships in atmosphere react differently to the air volume surrounding them, thus small plane have advantages over large planes. They leverage the atmosphere with their lift surfaces, and the air provides them direction changes "for free" with no mass cost to the ship.

But none of this matters in vacuum. No air volume to push away, and ships structurally built to handle high G loads, and drives able to produce the necessary thrust.

The only advantage a smaller ship has over a larger ship is its size. It's simply a smaller target, and thus harder to hit.

However, when dealing with light speed weapons, you're targeting is bound by the resolution of your sensors in identifying the target position. If the sensors have enough resolution, and the weapon mounts have a fine enough tracking ability comparable to the sensors, then the weapons hit fast enough that maneuver simply won't make a difference.

Simply put, the ship has to apply enough maneuver thrust to change the ships vector enough within the round trip time from when the sensor the detects the ship, the computer processes the information, the weapon mount tracks and fires the weapon.

At 5 hex range, the minimum time is 1 second. (1 hex == 1/10 light second, 30K km). Can the thrusters gimble that fast? Rotate the ship that fast? To actually be effective? Because recall it's not some guy with a reticle "aiming" and shooting the gun, it's a sophisticated computer and sensor suite doing all of this. I'd argue that a weapon mounts mirror or magnetic focusing aiming ring thing has a faster response time than a set of mechanical nozzles. You can jink and bob all you want, but if the sensor is watching you, it'll know that there is a finite amount time you can take between a zig and a zag, and as soon as you randomly zig, it's going to fire because it know precisely where you'll be .6 seconds from when it sees you.

Now maybe agility ranks the thruster gimble response time, or the fuel flow rate in terms of how fast it takes to go from 0G thrust to 6G thrust. Because those factors will affect how quickly a ship can change direction, and its easy to argue that a smaller ship may be able to do that better than a larger ship.

Because the final problem is that the bulk of the thrust is provided by the main drive. The main drive has 6G of thrust capability, but the maneuvering jets may well not, and if you want to change direction, you can't use the main drive beyond whatever gimble control it has, so you pretty much have to turn the ship physically. Whole lot of work to do.

The Vipers on BSG make a good show of it, but their thrusters are really too small, IMHO.

But, anyway, as I recall, agility was mostly excess power in the plant and not much else in game terms.