I like Jessica's catamaran-heavy-fighter idea, too.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, August 09, 2002 - 01:08 pm: Edit

Alex Chobot
(JAC1.0) F-111 PHASER FIRE CONTROL POD
This pod was devleoped in Y179 in an attempt to grant the F-111 more firepower for when it had exhausted its rails. The
oversized pod took up the entire internal bay of the F-111, and provided fine enough fire control to allow the fighter's
heavy phaser to function as a phaser-1. It was cosndered a waste at the time, trading off the valuable bay for a modest
increase in long-range firepower, not to mention that the two NVH-based F-111 squadrons were rarely finding themselves
short of drones and still needing to face enemy fighters. Once PFs appeared on the scene and F-111s were stepped up to
wide-scale production, the phaser fire control pod was looked to as a means to try to even the F-111's phaser capability as
compared to enemy PFs.

(JAC1.1) EFFECT: When the phaser fire control pod is carried, the F-111's phaser-2 is treated in all respects as a
phaser-1, subject to the normal restirctions on fighter weapons.

(JAC1.2) LOADING: this pod is loaded using the (J11.12) procedures, with the exception that it takes three turns to load
the pod.

(JAC1.3) CARRIAGE: One per fighter. It may only be loaded into the internal bay of an F-111. It may not be loaded onto
multiple drone/pod rails.

(JAC1.4) AVAILABILITY: Before Y???, none of these pods are inculded in a carrier's basic stockpile (J11.13), and a
maximum of one per F-111 may be purchased as Commander's Options. Y??? and after, they are unlimited.

(JAC1.5) ARMING: None required.

(JAC1.6) COST = 4 points.

(JAC1.7) YEAR of availability = Y179

DESIGNED BY: Alex Chobot and Jon Luckhaupt.

DESIGNER NOTES: Yes, it's another attempt at an Alphan fighter with a phaser-1, but it is on the super-heavy F-111, and
it gives up the entire internal bay to do so. That's also the reason for the high BPV cost, but I can see that going down a point
or two. The Y??? in (JAC1.4) is the year when the F-111 went into wide-scale production.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, August 09, 2002 - 01:31 pm: Edit

David Kass (Dkass) on Thursday, March 14, 2002 - 02:00 am: Edit


I'd like to suggest heavy fighter pods (basically 2 space pods). They take two rails. Generally under the same restrictions
as the equivalent standard pods. Most are about equal to multiple standard pods (or perhaps slightly better--although those
could be toned down if necessary). Suggested possibilities are:
*Heavy Chaff Pod (5 packs)
*Heavy Phaser Pod (ph-2, requires 1 point of power--could be down fired as ph-3 twice, on separate turns).
*Heavy Ground Attack Pod (2 point of ground attack strength each)
*Heavy Cargo Pod (2 cargo)
*Heavy Mine Laying Pod (one t-bomb) I question this one, but perhaps if very limited (eg one per carrier).

Note that I'm specifically not proposing heavy EW pods (too many difficult issues if they're better than standard EW pods).
These are an expansion of my original Ph-2 pod.

I have a more formal rules writeup if desired.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, August 09, 2002 - 01:53 pm: Edit

David Kass (Dkass) on Thursday, March 14, 2002 - 02:03 am: Edit


RALAP (Rail-Launched Anti-Plasma) A RALAD like round that requires 0.5 power to arm and does 1-6 asteroid (ie
phaser) damage to plasma torpedoes (and only plasma torpedoes). Only useable on fighters (drone racks aren't designed to
arm them). Maximum range 3, -1 damage at range 2 and -2 at range 1 (or maybe standard damage at range 2 and 3, -1 at
range 1). A Fed only invention (no one else bothered). Effectively equivalent to mounting a Ph-3 pod on each drone rail,
but only against plasma torpedoes (and limited to one per impulse).

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, August 09, 2002 - 02:07 pm: Edit

Marc Baluda (Discomaster) on Thursday, March 14, 2002 - 05:01 pm: Edit


Plasma Fighter Proposal:

I understand that plasma fighters are prohibitted from bolting their plasma. Could we discuss a rule that would allow an
upgrade to plasma fighters (even if it is just limited to certain rails/torps), that would allow a plasma fighter to bolt
plasma. It could be restricted to one a turn or some such thing.

The reason I'm asking for this is that even with the Pl-D upgrades, it is extremely difficult for plasma fighters to damage
ships (although Pl-F fighters have a much better chance). A plasma superiority fighter, even if firing a D-torp at range
2, has a significant chance of having it's torp run out.

I realize this could cause problems, and would have to be a purchased upgrade.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, August 09, 2002 - 02:13 pm: Edit

Jessica’s twin mustang: Might make an amusing article in captain’s Log.
=
Chuck: Faster E2s were published in J2.
=
Mike Raper: encapsulated ESG lance for Lyran fighters.
Answer: This is not entirely implausible. If you defined this imaginary weapon as being
ESG technology it would limit it to fighters. But could ships also use it? If not, why not,
And if so, how do you explain it never being there before?
=
Andy Palmer: ground attack fighter
Answer: : so noted.
=
Ben Moldovan: NCA variants.
Answer: No NCA variants. We are considering Module NCA with conjectural types.

By Mark Kuyper (Mark_K) on Friday, August 09, 2002 - 02:53 pm: Edit

Odd idea for fighters
Allow them to carry probes for "Recon" missions. One perrail. Data is uplinked to carrier.

Originally developed by the Feds for use on the GSC.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, August 09, 2002 - 02:55 pm: Edit

Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Sunday, March 17, 2002 - 03:33 pm: Edit


Frankly, the number one problem I seem to see with Lyran fighters is purely doctrinal. I never had any trouble
integrating a Lyran carrier group into my operations when I ran Lyran forces. I tended to find them as synergistic. The
drones of the fighters could either be used defensively to disrupt drone attack by the Kzintis, or offensively if the
Kzintis had depleted their own drone racks. The fighters could be used to counter Kzinti fighters (again disrupting
Kzinti drone operations). The fighters could be used to create flanking terrain. They were also highly useful as a follow
up threat to an ESG overrun (i.e., sure you managed to down or deplete or outright blow off the ship some of my ESGs,
but once I finish my overrun you are going to have to deal with the drones of the fighters following me in . . .).

I keep hearing about these problems of integrating the fighters and their drones with the ships and their ESGs. These
problems are NOT going to go away if you take the drones off the fighters. But you are going to no longer have the drone
capability to weaken Kzinti drone strikes (and having fighters able to launch drones to cover a damaged ship that cannot
raise its own ESG defenses is a good thing as well), and their ability to support Lyran operations will be greatly reduced
in range (fighters cannot fire heavy weapons, except the Feds, at targets more than ten hexes away) and effectiveness
(if you replace the drone with a heavy weapon, the heavy weapon will suffer the 4 points ECM penalty when fired at a
drone).

Now, I can understand why the Kzintis and Hydrans would want the Lyrans to not have drone armed fighters. It would end
the ability of Klingon and Lyran carriers to swap fighters. But I am frankly appaled that Lyran commanders would be so
short-sighted as to want to have a less capable fighter simply to claim that it is indigeneous. But then, such things do
happen in the real world.

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica) on Friday, August 09, 2002 - 03:25 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

Jessica’s twin mustang: Might make an amusing article in captain’s Log.

---

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, August 09, 2002 - 03:37 pm: Edit

Re: Jessicas Lyran Twin Mustang. I could see one being fast(perhaps the fastest) for the year and having two p-3s(either both FA or one FA and one 360') and plenty of damage points. Also, with a good dog fight rating but only two drones (and no pod rails at first then refitted shortly after). Since drones are the real bite of the fighter in this end of the galaxy it ultimatly failed. So the new plan was to go ahead with the new PF design and purchace fighters from the Klingons so as to not waist time on a new fighter design.

Also give it two chaff pods.

By Ryan Peck (Trex) on Friday, August 09, 2002 - 03:42 pm: Edit

Twin Mustang

I was thinking 3 P-3s FA. One on each 'body' and one on the center wing. Works good against drones, and almost as good as a gat.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Friday, August 09, 2002 - 03:50 pm: Edit

SVC,

RE, encapsulated ESG. My feeling is that a figher's ESG weapon will have very short range; no more than a fusion beam, if that. The only reason it couldn't work for large ships on a large scale is that a normal ESG field is huge; on the order of 10k to 100k in diamter. Such huge amounts of power couldn't be contained in narrowly focused field, and hence could never be direct fired. The fighter pulls it off because it's a pre-loaded, one shot weapon that's very small. If you're truly interested, I can do some work on real numbers, and some playtesting.

By Will Culbertson (Willhc) on Friday, August 09, 2002 - 04:08 pm: Edit

How about a drone module for the Lyrans that encorporated two things.

The first would be a firing mechanism. The second is an ESG that when the first module fires into it it supercharges the ESG and sends it shooting off as a direct fire weapon. These would take up most of the room on the drone and leave only enough room for a short drive engine that is only used to launch the drone from the fighter enough distance to not damage the fighter when fired. The drone is consumed in the firing of the weapon.

The entire item would be loaded as a drone, taking up normal Type-I drone load spaces but fired as a direct fire weapon. Damage would be small and short ranged as the ESG would burn out after a short while. Maybe 4 points out to range 3 or a sliding scale depending on range.

This does a few things...

1. The Lyrans would be the primary users of it as they are the ones that understand how ESGs work. While other races could develop it, any race could develop any weapon but it's not their area of expertise.

2. Since it modifies a drone, only their fighters would carry such an item. It has short range so ships are better off with Phasers as they are more effective. Also, the fighter would have to launch the drone as normal, get a short (still in the hex) range away from it and then activate the weapon so it can fire it's payload. This keeps the fighters in their drone launch limit.

3. Not all fighters have to give up their drones, or even all their drones to use this. Availability for it would be based on how many you want to see used. Perhaps a two-space drone could carry a large version (more range or more damage).

I don't know if there is a need for this but it would give the Lyrans more direct firepower from their fighters and still be able to keep some drones for other uses. I can imagine it would have taken them a while to develop a chassis that would handle the stress of firing this weapon as well as a small enough ESG to fit into a drone.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, August 09, 2002 - 04:10 pm: Edit

Chuck Strong (Raider) on Friday, March 22, 2002 - 08:58 pm: Edit


SVC: Any chance in the Feds getting a F15E "Strike Eagle" for J2?
Suggest:
4xI
2xVI
2xSpecial

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, August 09, 2002 - 04:11 pm: Edit

Chuck Strong (Raider) on Saturday, March 23, 2002 - 01:58 pm: Edit


What about a HARM-like system that targets the very sensor energy that enemy ships use to control their seeking
weapons.

Once launched the drone seeks the sensor energy and requires no control from the launcher. The drone can be defeated by
normal means OR by shutting off your sensor (it drops lock-on). If the enemy drops his sensors these drones will then
pick-up pursuit plotting on the last known hex of the target until they run out their endurance. Should the target
activate its sensor (or even use a system that would normally blind a special sensor channel -- they pursue the
blinding hex) these drones will pickup the scent and seek the target again. If, for whatever reason, these drones enter
the hex of the target with INACTIVE sensors these drones will detect the target's residual hull energy and detonate but
only using the WW table to determine damage against the target.

Due to the flight characteristics of these drones they can be detected by only the target with ACTIVE sensors at range-4
or any ship using the normal lab ID rules.

Pros:
1. HARM-like drones do not use friendly sensors after they are launched -- frees channels for other uses
2. If used, they could cause the enemy to shut-down his sensors -- enemy loses tracking on his drones
3. Suppresses targets ability to conduct normal operations while under restrictions
4. Could reacquire target at later time

Cons:
1. HARM-like drone frames cost x-points over normal frames
2. Are detected by the target at range-4
3. Can be defeated normally or by shut down of enemy sensor

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, March 23, 2002 - 02:05 pm: Edit


Chuck: While a "soft kill weapon" is on the auto-reject list and has been for years, I presume your "Home On
Sensor-Scanner" (HOSS) drone would cause normal damage on impact rather than just attacking the sensor and scanner
tracks as previous HARM proposals have done. I can dig it, so write up a complete rule and Email it to me. Make the
"reacquire" part a later upgrade.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, August 09, 2002 - 04:14 pm: Edit

Are there Stealth Fighters in J2?

NO, AND WE WILL NOT CONSIDER THEM LATER.

By John Pepper (Akula) on Friday, August 09, 2002 - 04:47 pm: Edit

Is a F-111 carring a photon in place of the whole bay dead?

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, August 09, 2002 - 06:00 pm: Edit

Scott Tenhoff: Can we get a Conjectural Fed F-12 fighter so we could know what it looked like before they all get sold to the Gorns?

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, August 09, 2002 - 06:01 pm: Edit

Andrew Harding (Warlock) on Monday, April 22, 2002 - 02:51 am: Edit


Plasma-D submunition drone: a type-IV MW with 1*plas-D instead of 5*type-VI drones. I know it's been proposed a
number of times over the years (you've probably got a bit of yellowing paper on file from my "Hellfish" go at it about
1990).

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, August 09, 2002 - 06:20 pm: Edit

Will C: I don't think so.
Mike R: Eh.... I don't think so.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, August 09, 2002 - 06:21 pm: Edit

Q: Is a F-111 carring a photon in place of the whole bay dead?
A: Recharging it is, carrying it.... answer murky, ask again much later.

By Jim Davies (Mudfoot) on Friday, August 09, 2002 - 06:31 pm: Edit

Transport fighter.

Essentially a cheap but very very fast way to get a few people from A to B, where A and B are a couple of LY apart.

Take the year's standard fighter, rip out most of the weapons, add cargo space (say 8 cargo spaces total, ie half an admin) and a bit of fuel.

Is a real fighter, so can HET, disengage by acceleration, do unplotted speed changes, etc. Probably has 1 P3, 2 chaff, can carry 2 extra pods that slow it down. BPV about 4.

While (G25.134) denies the existence of cargo fighters, this is more of an express shuttle.

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Friday, August 09, 2002 - 06:51 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

Alex Chobot
(JAC1.0) F-111 PHASER FIRE CONTROL POD

---

By John Pepper (Akula) on Friday, August 09, 2002 - 06:55 pm: Edit

Can the F-111 Phaser Fire Control Pod work on bombers?

By Charles E. Gray (Cgray45) on Friday, August 09, 2002 - 06:56 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

Mike Raper: encapsulated ESG lance for Lyran fighters.
Answer: This is not entirely implausible. If you defined this imaginary weapon as being
ESG technology it would limit it to fighters. But could ships also use it? If not, why not,
And if so, how do you explain it never being there before?
=

---