Phil,

The role of picket and scout is much better done by something with a jump drive, because if the main body needs to leave, you dont need to either lose them or wait for multiple days for them to get back.

A basic tech-12  jump-3 Scout/Courier - and its not easy to build better than jump-3 ships that go in the line of battle in Trav - costs about the same 1 MCr per dton every other military ship roughly costs, coming in at a base MCr96 for 100 dtons.

A squadron of these can travel with the battlewagon, meaning it doesnt need to piss several percent of it's total volume up against a wall in carrying fighters that are equally unimportant in battle and cannot run messages back and forth to the fleet's other detatchments.

If, for some reason, the Navy absolutely insists on carrying non jump capable craft that arent useful in the line of battle, then the Navy should commission some sort of close structure platform for them that can sit somewhere safe while it's fighters do the best they can to replace the Type S.

But me, I say buy the good old Type S by the tens of hundreds, and if they need to go at jump-3 or jump-4, then build dedicated close structure carriers for them (a 20kton tech 13 jump-4 jeep carrier came in at a base GCr11, and carried 40 100dton and 2 1kdton craft ie 40 scout/couriers and a pair of fuel shuttles).

Ian Whitchurch

On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 11:39 PM, Phil Pugliese (via tml list) <nobody@simplelists.com> wrote:
This email was sent from yahoo.com which does not allow forwarding of emails via email lists. Therefore the sender's email address (philpugliese@yahoo.com) has been replaced with a dummy one. The original message follows:

Uh, yes they do work just fine.

The discussion *has* been about their use as pickets, scouts, etc, for which they quite capable but even so, in sufficient numbers they can be effective against much larger craft (depends on exactly what you mean by "real military ship" as there are plenty of escort types that don't carry much armor) though those *are* escorts.

I think the main problem is with the term 'heavy fighter'.
It seems to imply a capability that really cannot actually exist.
It's only 'heavy' in the sense that it's 'heavier' than some other designs such as a 10-11dT  'light' fighter I recall from somewhere. Azhanti HL class maybe?

--------------------------------------------
On Tue, 10/7/14, Ian Whitchurch <ian.whitchurch@gmail.com> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [TML] Why do those big ships carry so many fighters?
 To: tml@simplelists.com
 Date: Tuesday, October 7, 2014, 4:26 PM

 Phil
 Pugliese alleged "The canonical 50dT heavy fighter
 that the 'Tigress' class carries works fine in CT,
 less so for later morphs..."
 No. It
 doesnt. Under Book 5 High Guard They cannot actually scratch
 any real military ship built with actual armor, and they
 dont have a big enough Size to avoid internal crits, or
 enough crew to cop radiation damage.
 They
 are auxilary craft, useful against civilians and other
 auxiliaries.
 On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 6:20
 AM, Phil Pugliese (via tml list) <nobody@simplelists.com>
 wrote:
 This email was sent from yahoo.com which does not allow
 forwarding of emails via email lists. Therefore the
 sender's email address (philpugliese@yahoo.com)
 has been replaced with a dummy one. The original message
 follows:





 --------------------------------------------

 On Tue, 10/7/14, Jeffrey
 Schwartz <schwartz.jeffrey@gmail.com>
 wrote:



  Subject: Re: [TML] Why do those big ships carry so many
 fighters?

  To: "tml" <tml@simplelists.com>

  Date: Tuesday, October 7, 2014, 11:59 AM



  On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at

  2:28 PM, Craig Berry <cdberry@gmail.com>

  wrote:

  > Yes, gravitics change a lot. But

  you still need streamlining to

  > operate

  in an atmosphere -- both per the rules, and per

  reasonable

  > extrapolation. A streamlined

  shape will move through the air more

  >

  easily, with less turbulence. This is going to be
 especially

  true for

  > a fighter, which presumably

  will be zipping around at high Mach

  >

  numbers. All those smooth curves and fairings are dead
 mass

  for a

  > vacuum fighter.



  Do they have to be dead mass

  though?



  I mean, the curved

  surface is going to contribute to armor

  protectiveness, for example, which is an

  advantage in space as well.

  I guess the

  amount of 'waste' depends on how much unusable

  volume is

  between the hardware and the

  skin.



  I think the rules

  give a 10% increase in weight for streamlining, and

  I half remember wedges having no weight penalty

  for streamlining.



  Is 10% a

  big enough difference for a _meaningful_ edge?



  IIRC, the example fighter in

  MT was too small for M-Drives, so it had

  "just" 12G of gravitics, and accepted

  the penalty for using gravs on

  the distant

  edges of a gravity well.



  I'd read that as out between 50D and 100D,

  the fighters have 1.2G or

  1.3 G of accel,

  both of which round down to 1G for combat rules...

  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



 The canonical 50dT heavy fighter that the 'Tigress'
 class carries works fine in CT, less so for later
 morphs...



 ========================================================================================



 -----

 The Traveller Mailing List

 Archives at http://archives.simplelists.com/tml

 Report problems to listmom@travellercentral.com

 To unsubscribe from this list please goto

 http://archives.simplelists.com




 -----
 The Traveller Mailing List
 Archives at http://archives.simplelists.com/tml
 Report problems to listmom@travellercentral.com
 To unsubscribe from this list please goto
 http://archives.simplelists.com
-----
The Traveller Mailing List
Archives at http://archives.simplelists.com/tml
Report problems to listmom@travellercentral.com
To unsubscribe from this list please goto
http://www.simplelists.com/confirm.php?u=Qjs81DnfPhuRQ7Rw3I0XVltos3d36yjy