www.ditl.org

The Resistance class is a departure from military design normality. Rarely in a vessel larger than a gunboat, are torpedoes a primary armament, as they are not as practical or versatile as energy weapons. This is a different case entirely.

The Resistance is armed with a single three-cell 'compressed' torpedo launcher mounted directly atop the main hull. 'Compressed' torpedoes, more casually nicknamed 'pancakes', are a type of torpedo that is designed to be as flat, wide and long as possible to conserve space. a standard torpedo launcher of equivalent size would only be able to mount 1 tube, where as this mounts three in a vertical stack arrangement. This torpedo is admittedly wider, but the firepower is not compromised and there is more space for additional tubes.

Torpedoes of this size, graded on length (these being grade C, or 3 meters), have enough destructive power from their warhead (be it plasmatic, thermo-nuclear, fusion or anti-matter) to completely obliterate the shields of a cruiser, and likely do some splashback damage to the hull. The torpedoes carry a propulsion system that propels them at fighter speeds and maneuverability, as well as a high-capability tracking system.

The Resistance may carry a formidable anti-ship armament, but her anti-fighter weapons are not amazingly powerful. The under-hull mounted quad gattling laser is effective enough, but the quad single barrel lasers are not powerful and coverage is not comprehensive. Large calibre weapons can also easily penetrate the shields and hull of this ship, as can most weapons fitted to bombers.

Effectively, this vessel is only good use as a long range artillery craft.

I like it. Seems more like an escort craft though. I guess it depends on how useful torpedoes are in your universe and how common fighters are.

Fighters are fairly common, a single squadron is worth 15 fighters: 10 fighter 5 bombers. This kind of thing would be the heavy firepower of a system defence force. Its really cheap to make and fairly resource efficient, packing a huge punch for its size.

Wouldn't mixing fighters and bombers in the same squadron, particularly with uneven numbers, be a bit of a problem when it comes to ammunition, fuel, supplies, parts, etc? For administrative purposes it'd probably be better to have squads be either all fighter or all bomber.

I had them mixed because I had thought that it would make the squadron more practical and versatile, but i admit that it might make more problems than its worth. perhaps 10 unit fighter squadrons, and 5 unit bomber squadrons?

It's best to seperate them, I think.
10 fighters per squadron is fine, though you should round the bombers to an even number; that way they can provide support and cover for each other in pairs.

I'd push it up to 6 then.

Yeah, that'd probably work fine.

You can have 5 bombers in a squadron, so long as the formation is built with them covering each other. You don't need even numbers. Just a flight plan that works for the numbers you have.

As to having fighters and bombers in the same squadron... I agree that you shouldn't do so. That gives to many problems for one squadron commander to deal with.

15 unit Fighter Squadron
10 unit Heavy Fighter/Fighter Bomber Squadron
5 unit Bomber Squadron

Seems logical. It shall be implemented at once

The importance of having them rounded to an even number is that it allows them to fly and function as wingmen, working in pairs and covering each other. While not as important for bombers, it is much better to utilise fighters in that way. That's why all modern fighters fly in pairs.

There's also the problem that the more craft you trying a use as a single unit the greater the chance of them running into each other - that's why the original three-aircraft "vic" was replaced by the "finger four" of two pairs.