Space fighters

[Evo Plurion]

What are your thoughts on manned space fighters vs unmanned, remote- or AI-piloted missiles and drones?

I'm thinking space fighters with pilots, cockpits, and life-support requirements might be a waste of money, space and human (or other) life.

 

[mike wightman]

The answer depends on the ruleset being used.
In CT, with Book 2 combat and missile rules (or better yet, the special supplement missile rules) then fighters could be a real threat and could survive the combats.
In HG fighters are almost useless without adopting some house rules for linking fighters to group fire as a battery etc., and they die too easily if hit (hitting them's the problem ).
MT is similar to HG.
Fighters in TNE are very useful. They extend your sensor cover, their missiles are once again deadly and they can survive a few hits.
T4??? I've never used the ship combat system so I can't comment on this one.
GT??? Same as the above
T20 fighters become semi-useful (despite the HG based combat factors) because they can carry nuclear missiles, or fusion guns, or particle accelerators (or if the referee allows, a combination of the above), all of which can damage lightly armoured ships of whatever size. And with the critical hit rule fighters could cause a lot of damage.

I would always go for remote controlled fighters fitted with a robot brain for when the controller is jammed, or even have fully autonomous robot/drone fighters.
Why waste those highly trained and valuable pilots in death traps?
Plus you can put the space the crew would have used to much better use (more armour etc.).

The Imperium has a cultural bias against robots used like this, but other races (the Hivers and the K'kree) have adopted the concept fully.

 

[Spyder_GS]

Fighters are possible. They would have to be small one man vehicles (or AI/drone) with heavy armament to be useful and have to be built in swarms.

I don't feel the OTU is particularly conducive to fighter combat, nor is the ship construction system. The existance of useful fighters would completely skew the entire combat doctrine of the universe. It would make pirates more viable. Making a change like this is very nearly making a change like altering the duration of Jumps. Shortening or lengthening it radically alters the communications and economy of the universe.

That said, I love the concept of fighters and have been slowly introducing them in my universe. The Imperium has a couple of fleet carriers to test the concept and the Zho are not far behind with their first prototype. If successful, it will dictate a major fleet redesign. Point defense will become much more important and navies will have to start building dedicated PD ships...

just my thoughts, hope it helps.

EDIT*** Sorry, I should mention that I use T20 with some minor input from Gurps Traveller.

EDIT again*** Life support isn't any more of an issue for space fighters than they are for scuba divers. You have an environment suit with a 4-6 hour endurance. Self contained. Cockpits are designed to accomodate the extra size. Fighters should not be long endurance vehicles. These craft aren't going to be jump capable so there is no reason to design long-term life support. Leave it out completely and make things simpler.

 

[mike wightman]

Fighters were very much part of the small ship OTU paradigm. A 1000t jump3/4 warship could easily carry ten fighters, thus doubling its number of weapons. Plus the fighters can patrol independently of the mother-ship.

High Guard spoiled all that though

 

[Ran Targas]

Gotta have starfuries! Fighters make to much sense not to exist. Even if for only to prosecute sensor anomolies or scout ahead for the mother ship, it makes sense.

 

[mike wightman]

I liked the way the fighters were used in the Battlestar Galactica mini series (the new one - not the one that gave us "Galactica Discovers Earth" ).

 

[Andrew Boulton]

They certainly have a place. You wouldn't use them against a capital ship, but they can certainly hurt anything smaller than a cruiser. They're cheap and fast, and excellent for scouting and anti-piracy.

 

[Ranger]

In HG fighters are almost useless without adopting some house rules for linking fighters to group fire as a battery etc., and they die too easily if hit (hitting them's the problem ).

Wasn't there a Challenge article about using meson communications to allow 4 or 5 fighters to salvo fire their missles at an attack factor of 7?

 

[Psion]

Fighters by the rules:

For:
-It eliminates the "100 ton per hardpoint" ratio. The lets you multiply the offensive firepower of ship large enough to field many of them but too small to consider a large spinal mount (say 1000-10000 tons).
-In a universe with nuclear missiles, it pays to spread out your offensive capabilities.
-Fighters, like battle riders, don't have the overhead of starship system like jump drive, jump fuel, etc.

Against:
Unlike modern fighters, fighters in traveller can't go any faster than ships. This nullifies many of the reasons we use fighters today.

Other thoughts:
More generally, they can't mount high USP weapons, which makes well defended (i.e., capital) ships a tough nut to crack, but they are great force multipliers for smaller ships. I would think that this would mean more smaller carriers than we see in CT and MT.

In T20, weapon damage is a little more open ended since small fighters en masse have a better chance to harm big ships since they are not as sharply limited as they are in CT/MT. So it would make more sense to make big carriers in T20.

In either case, it's interesting that owing to the limitations on the potency of fighter weaponry, that battleship style warfare (i.e., spinal mounts) still makes sense.

 

[Evo Plurion]

I should clarify: I didn't say that fighters wouldn't be useful. I said that manned fighters would be wasteful, given that unmanned drones or missiles could do everything a fighter does without risking life.

 

[mike wightman]

Originally posted by Ranger:
Wasn't there a Challenge article about using meson communications to allow 4 or 5 fighters to salvo fire their missles at an attack factor of 7?

There were definitely some house rules in a Journal, I'll have to check through my Challenge collection though.

 

[mike wightman]

Originally posted by Evo Plurion:
I should clarify: I didn't say that fighters wouldn't be useful. I said that manned fighters would be wasteful, given that unmanned drones or missiles could do everything a fighter does without risking life.

I agree completely.
I would go as far as have robotic Battle Riders, but that's probably best kept for a different discussion

 

[Durkin]

The problem really depends on two things; combat effectiveness and cultural attitude.

Firstly, effectiveness can truely be devestating.
10 10dt fighters, even if firing only a single factor 2 - 3 (HG rating missile) will still require 10 defensive batteries to deal with. Even though the point defense systems (sand casters, Lasers, repulsors, and the like) can easily swat down the missiles, they are none the
less tied up.

As for the cultural attitudes. The Sword Worlders for example could easily be seen to adopting a "knights of the air / space" attitude. While the Hivers or the K'Kree would more likely take a more cost effective / peservation of life attitude. (besides I cant imagine a K'kree jamming themselves into a fighter. Even the 50t Magnus fighter from MT/COACC would be just too darned small. )

BTW, I did a little suddy of robotic brains for space craft a while ago ussing the Book 8:Robots design system. In order to build a robot brian(s) with enough smarts to fligh a fighter in combat is ... difficult to say the least.

Perhaps we should do some more work on that project.

 

[Evo Plurion]

Originally posted by Durkin Shipyards:
...ussing the Book 8:Robots design system. In order to build a robot brian(s) with enough smarts to fligh a fighter in combat is ... difficult to say the least.

Of course the existing rules' primitive portrayal of computer and AI technology makes automated fighters and drones impractical in game terms. But Traveller was designed from the beginning to be hard-ish SF. It shows its space-opera underpinnings in several ways including renaissance era European-style nobility and lack of AI technology.

I've just been toying around with various ways to make Traveller harder SF without stroking it.

 

[ScottB]

Originally posted by Evo Plurion:
What are your thoughts on manned space fighters vs unmanned, remote- or AI-piloted missiles and drones?

I'm thinking space fighters with pilots, cockpits, and life-support requirements might be a waste of money, space and human (or other) life.

Remotely controlled drones will depend on the rules set used. I use a modified Book 2 system, so IMTU fighters are very useful, particularly for their ability to operate well away from a relatively fragile carrier. Using remotes means the carrier has to be close enough that communication lag isn't a big deal, so remotely controlled fighters and human-piloted fighters have different roles. As much as possible, an admiral doesn't want to be using drones for long range patrols and strikes, and conversely doesn't want to be using human-piloted craft in attrition battles. But of course, circumstances aren't always ideal, and there's a bias towards human-piloted fighters because of the increased flexibility.

So far as AI goes, it's kind of a philosophical question, in that it depends on what the limits of AI are (if any). From that point of view, it's also a question that'll vary from TU to TU independent of space combat rules, and probably affect a lot more than just fighters.

Answering the AI question IMTU, at anywhere near human capabilities AI tends to be uncontrollable - you can't get human-level thought without some kind of conciousness or self-awareness that inevitably results in free will. My Imperium-equivalent has a policy of keeping AI applications well back of that threshold (due to some spectacular failures that provide some adventure prospects), so while AI might be used to guide a long-range drone strike on a target, the fighters that intercept or escort that strike will probably be human controlled (whether that's done remotely or via a pilot in the cockpit depends on range, as above).

 

[Andrew Boulton]

"I've just been toying around with various ways to make Traveller harder SF without stroking it. "

There goes another keyboard...

 

[aramis]

I'm going to do my own for and against tables... more complete thn the above poster's

For:</font>

• Avoids the hardpoint limit on 1HP:100Td</font>
• Allows more flexible scanning (Since, under CT/HG, they ahve full sensors)</font>
• Alows more rapid replacement of combat losses</font>
• Allows more flexible deployment of force</font>
• Missile fighters tie up point defense systems</font>

Against:
</font>

• Crew intensive. Even if AI's pilot them, they still require more maintenance than equivalent tonnage of weaponry aboard a larger ship, and more broad maintenance as well (Ce, Cm, Cl, Cg, and Cf...) plus</font>
• they can more than quadruple the number of pilots needed for even SMALL carriers.</font>
• they are less cost effective in terms of cost pr hardpoint, due to computing requirements.</font>
• pilots require training</font>
• AI's are frightfully expensive</font>
• remote control rigs are at decided tactical disadvantages over typical (1/10th LS +) Traveller battle ranges.</font>
• armor is less effective and more expensive propotionately for smaller craft.</font>

 

[clementk]

Originally posted by Evo Plurion:
I've just been toying around with various ways to make Traveller harder SF without stroking it.

.sig'd!

Casey

 

[Ran Targas]

^ For one, I've never liked (only tolerated) the 1HP / 100dT rule. Weapons load should be based on power/sensor requirements, not tonnage. I should be able to fill a standard ship's boat with fire-and-forget missiles and launch an attack on a far trader at whim.

For beam weapons, it should work the same as long as the weapon isn't on a turret; if I have juice enough to power the weapon then I should be able to mount it on my ship and fire it. Call it a mini spinal mount if it bothers you.

As long as the spaceframe can handle the stress, then load it up.

 

[Psion]

Originally posted by Evo Plurion:
rimitive portrayal of computer and AI technology makes automated fighters and drones impractical in game terms. But Traveller was designed from the beginning to be hard-ish SF. It shows its space-opera underpinnings in several ways including renaissance era European-style nobility and lack of AI technology.

On the AI issue: how good AIs will be how soon is anyone's guess, and pretty much a matter of game design more than science. But, if you use something like book 8, I see little problem with making AI drones.

But... human life can be easily made out to be cheap. I mean the reason that TCS limits pilots is that they are supposedly (as they are in modern day earth) difficult to train. It takes lotsa man-hours to train a pilot.

But you have to consider OTHER effects of advancement. Sure, some day an AI that is as effective as a pilot may be possible. But at the same time that is developing,

- controls are developing to make piloting easier, and
- more training capabilities. Teaching (and simulating a piloting environment) might become a much less expensive proposition.

The imperium has worlds with tens of billions of people. Though some sentiment of the value of human life may persist, it seems to be an abundant resource.

I think it is a question you could easily split the difference on. For example, look at the vehicle design sequence. If your design criteria demand that you pack a missile into every square cm of the fighter chasis and your design spec and price allow you to field a small robot brain instead of a large human, then that is what you should do. If the fighter has no such requirements, then a human may be appropriate. You thus might have different fighters/drones for different roles.