NationStates Jolt Archive

Now that you've got your Commander, Flagship and even a sidekick designated, it's time for another component.

Any space battle fleet must have fighters. We've seen the historical effectiveness of fighters even against capital ships. Unless you're a hardcore Star Trek fanboy, you acknowledge that space fighters are useful.

So what would be the mainstay of your fighter squadrons?

No poll this time, I forgot. Besides, there's too many to choose from. Some suggestions:

Infocom X-Wing
Star Fury
Hammerhead (Remember Space:Above and Beyond?)
Colonial Viper
Veritech Valkyrie

Fighters are useless.

Lightspeed weapons > Sublight fighters.

Fighters are useless.

Lightspeed weapons > Sublight fighters.

Interesting. So you say no need for bombers, a CAP, escort, a small, difficult to hit craft?

It would seem like just about every Sci Fi genere except Star Trek disagrees with you :)

Russian Gorinich and Southern American Durandal.

Anybody able to tell where are they from? :p

Interesting. So you say no need for bombers, a CAP, escort, a small, difficult to hit craft?

It would seem like just about every Sci Fi genere except Star Trek disagrees with you :)

Ships have mass, ships have momentum. They can only turn so fast. Any half decent person can lead a target and hit it with bullets. When you're firing a laser that moves at light speed it's near impossible to miss.


Now, there is a use for fighter drones, but not manned ships. Swarm enough of them and you might overwhelm their available number of weapons. Though that's not effective against wide area beam weapons.

There are ironically not as many fighters to choose from as capital ships, Star Trek and many animes don't have anything smaller than capital class. (Though Star Trek did have small vessels, they wern't really used for combat as a standard tactic)

The Viper Mark-II is interesting, though the upgrading Mark-VII may be a better choice.
What about the Wraith Dart or Goa'uld Death Glider.

Ships have mass, ships have momentum. They can only turn so fast. Any half decent person can lead a target and hit it with bullets. When you're firing a laser that moves at light speed it's near impossible to miss.


Now, there is a use for fighter drones, but not manned ships. Swarm enough of them and you might overwhelm their available number of weapons. Though that's not effective against wide area beam weapons.

I disagree.

While it's true that g-forces are a limiting factor in maneuverability, there are ways to mitigate this somewhat. Star Furies and Colonial Vipers both can spin on any axis and even fly backward, but the pilot is at the center of mass, or pivot point, which reduces the Gs on the pilot with certain maneuvers.

Not all weapons are lightspeed velocity. even those that are can miss. I don't see that as a disqualifier. Unless we're assuming all weapons and vessels are robotic anyway, manned fighters do have a place.

Take, for example, the episode 'Hand of God' in the new BSG. Apollo maneuvered his Viper down a mining tunnel and snuck up on the tilium storage tanks and blew them away on pure intuition and instinct. An unmanned drone would have failed on that mission.

I disagree.

While it's true that g-forces are a limiting factor in maneuverability, there are ways to mitigate this somewhat. Star Furies and Colonial Vipers both can spin on any axis and even fly backward, but the pilot is at the center of mass, or pivot point, which reduces the Gs on the pilot with certain maneuvers.

Not all weapons are lightspeed velocity. even those that are can miss. I don't see that as a disqualifier. Unless we're assuming all weapons and vessels are robotic anyway, manned fighters do have a place.

Take, for example, the episode 'Hand of God' in the new BSG. Apollo maneuvered his Viper down a mining tunnel and snuck up on the tilium storage tanks and blew them away on pure intuition and instinct. An unmanned drone would have failed on that mission.

And anyone with sense would of sat about 30 light minutes out and lobbed asteroids at the target with relativistic velocity.

Tie-fighters, cuz those are the only ones I can recall.:p

squadrons of flying vampires.

And anyone with sense would of sat about 30 light minutes out and lobbed asteroids at the target with relativistic velocity.

Mass Drivers!?!?!? those are WMDs! Look what they did to Narn...

Corsair Titans (Freelancer)

Also, my response to fighter pilots is "All of the above".

And anyone with sense would of sat about 30 light minutes out and lobbed asteroids at the target with relativistic velocity.

of what?

Mass Drivers!?!?!? those are WMDs! Look what they did to Narn...

Nukes are kids toys. If you're going to go to war with an alien fleet I'll break out any kind of massive kabooms possible.

Here's the problems with fighters:

1) Humans are very fragile and require a ton of resources to keep them alive, aware, and relatively healthy. All of those resources require space, mass, and energy to keep them running.
2) Humans don't handle rapid changes in G forces well at all. Depending on your inertial dampering you may or may not be able to maneuver fast enough to avoid a decent marksman with a chain gun, let alone any near lightspeed weapons.
3) Fighters have limited space/energy for shielding/armor plating, making them very soft targets.
4) Manufacturing new fighters (or drones) takes more resources and time than reloading a set of weapons. Whether kinetic weapons or energy weapons. Unless your miss rate is horrible you're better off with guns.

Nukes are kids toys. If you're going to go to war with an alien fleet I'll break out any kind of massive kabooms possible.

Here's the problems with fighters:

1) Humans are very fragile and require a ton of resources to keep them alive, aware, and relatively healthy. All of those resources require space, mass, and energy to keep them running.
2) Humans don't handle rapid changes in G forces well at all. Depending on your inertial dampering you may or may not be able to maneuver fast enough to avoid a decent marksman with a chain gun, let alone any near lightspeed weapons.
3) Fighters have limited space/energy for shielding/armor plating, making them very soft targets.
4) Manufacturing new fighters (or drones) takes more resources and time than reloading a set of weapons. Whether kinetic weapons or energy weapons. Unless your miss rate is horrible you're better off with guns.

The Executor, as well as both Death Stars, were destroyed by A-Wings and Y-Wings, not by a capital ship.

And lest we think a fictional story can have no validity in reality, Pearl Harbor was laid waste by fighters. The Japanese fleet at Midway was defeated by fighters. The Bismarck was sunk by fighters.

Resource intensive they may be, but fighters, when properly employed, offer a lot of bang for the buck.

squadrons of flying vampires.
I second this.

The Executor, as well as both Death Stars, were destroyed by A-Wings and Y-Wings, not by a capital ship.

And lest we think a fictional story can have no validity in reality, Pearl Harbor was laid waste by fighters. The Japanese fleet at Midway was defeated by fighters. The Bismarck was sunk by fighters.

Resource intensive they may be, but fighters, when properly employed, offer a lot of bang for the buck.

^this. and remember, fighters have other used than just ship to ship combat; They can strait ground targets that you can't hit from space, due to size, proximity of civilians, or the like, they can fly scout and recon missions, they can run for help if your comm system is disabled, ect.

also, 12 fighters are probably just as resource intensive as powering a rail gun or laser, and with 12 fighters, you get the same effectiveness if they are employed right, and lots more shots.

The Executor, as well as both Death Stars, were destroyed by A-Wings and Y-Wings, not by a capital ship.

And lest we think a fictional story can have no validity in reality, Pearl Harbor was laid waste by fighters. The Japanese fleet at Midway was defeated by fighters. The Bismarck was sunk by fighters.

Resource intensive they may be, but fighters, when properly employed, offer a lot of bang for the buck.

The dynamics of warfare changed considerably with the advent of Radar. Late WWII battles with fighters routinely ended with the fighters ending up dropping like flies.

The dynamics of warfare changed considerably with the advent of Radar. Late WWII battles with fighters routinely ended with the fighters ending up dropping like flies.

Again, I must disagree. The U.S. Pacific fleet had the radar advantage over Imperial Japan and yet fighter attacks, even if not kamikazes, took a severe toll, destroying several American capital ships including carriers and battleships. In many ways it was a war of attrition, and the U.S. won by outlasting them and squeezing their resources through submarine operations, not by having an easy time against the fighters.

Again, I must disagree. The U.S. Pacific fleet had the radar advantage over Imperial Japan and yet fighter attacks, even if not kamikazes, took a severe toll, destroying several American capital ships including carriers and battleships. In many ways it was a war of attrition, and the U.S. won by outlasting them and squeezing their resources through submarine operations, not by having an easy time against the fighters.

Let's look at Star Wars fighters. They're not very fast, they're unshielded, very short range, and weak firepower. If the Star Wars verse had any decent shielding anywhere they'd be a joke, to say nothing of targetting computers. The empire deploys them in absolute swarms and they're pretty well ignored. Against a capital ship they do absolutely nothing to their shields. Now they can be useful due to the peculiarity of SW shields not blocking physical objects. Useful as rams. Though again this makes one wonder why a mass driver won't be just as effective without the kamikaze aspect.

Remember episode 3, the starting battle. The evil ships fired droids at the jedi fighters. Fucking droids, that went through whatever shields the fighter had (if any). Now ignoring the absurdity of firing robots instead of say, bullets, this shows an important point. Fighters aren't hard to hit, and they're not shielded sufficiently. If a fucking Jedi can't dodge how can a normal shlub?

Fighter vs capital ship. Fighter loses, hundreds and hundreds of fighters lose.

Let's look at Star Wars fighters. They're not very fast, they're unshielded, very short range, and weak firepower. If the Star Wars verse had any decent shielding anywhere they'd be a joke, to say nothing of targetting computers. The empire deploys them in absolute swarms and they're pretty well ignored. Against a capital ship they do absolutely nothing to their shields. Now they can be useful due to the peculiarity of SW shields not blocking physical objects. Useful as rams. Though again this makes one wonder why a mass driver won't be just as effective without the kamikaze aspect.

Actually this isn't exactly true. While it's accurate to say that TIE fighters have no shielding, rebel fighters do. They are also armed with blasters (which were sufficient to destroy the large spherical projection on the bridge tower of the Executor), proton torpedoes (sufficient to set the Death Star's reactor critical) and in some cases, concussion missiles (Which fatally damaged the main reactor in Death Star II just after Wedge destroyed the power regulator with blasters.) Rebel fighters are also equipped with targeting computers.

The swarms of TIEs are hardly ignored, especially given the presence of TIE bombers.


Remember episode 3, the starting battle. The evil ships fired droids at the jedi fighters. Fucking droids, that went through whatever shields the fighter had (if any). Now ignoring the absurdity of firing robots instead of say, bullets, this shows an important point. Fighters aren't hard to hit, and they're not shielded sufficiently. If a fucking Jedi can't dodge how can a normal shlub?


But remember they fired guided missiles first, which the Jedi avoided. I agree the remote robots were silly in a simple search and destroy context, but that isn't the fighter's fault.


Fighter vs capital ship. Fighter loses, hundreds and hundreds of fighters lose.

I think there are a great number of WWI Naval personnel from multiple nations who would disagree with that statement, and even within the Star Wars Universe I think good Admiral Piett might have something to say about that...

...if he were still alive. The Executor was the largest, most heavily armed ship, packed with the elite best and brightest personnel the Imperial Navy had to offer, and it was taken down by an A-Wing kamikaze after the shields had been disabled due to damage from the destruction of the sensor tower atop the bridge module. The sensor tower was destroyed, in turn, by volume of fire by Rebel fighters.

Actually this isn't exactly true. While it's accurate to say that TIE fighters have no shielding, rebel fighters do. They are also armed with blasters (which were sufficient to destroy the large spherical projection on the bridge tower of the Executor), proton torpedoes (sufficient to set the Death Star's reactor critical) and in some cases, concussion missiles (Which fatally damaged the main reactor in Death Star II just after Wedge destroyed the power regulator with blasters.) Rebel fighters are also equipped with targeting computers.

The swarms of TIEs are hardly ignored, especially given the presence of TIE bombers.



But remember they fired guided missiles first, which the Jedi avoided. I agree the remote robots were silly in a simple search and destroy context, but that isn't the fighter's fault.



I think there are a great number of WWI Naval personnel from multiple nations who would disagree with that statement, and even within the Star Wars Universe I think good Admiral Piett might have something to say about that...

...if he were still alive. The Executor was the largest, most heavily armed ship, packed with the elite best and brightest personnel the Imperial Navy had to offer, and it was taken down by an A-Wing kamikaze after the shields had been disabled due to damage from the destruction of the sensor tower atop the bridge module. The sensor tower was destroyed, in turn, by volume of fire by Rebel fighters.

You're comparing WWI and WWII to space battles, which is a bit silly. Even if your fighter has the godlike omniscience to avoid lightspeed or near weapons fire they still have very limited weapons capability of their own. You can only fit so much power in a small ship. Probably why so many fighters across so many shows in Sci-fi lack decent shields. It's either shields or guns. Me, I'd go for drones and remote piloted vehicles. They have disadvantages, but when they blow up you're not losing countless hours of pilot training.

You're comparing WWI and WWII to space battles, which is a bit silly. Even if your fighter has the godlike omniscience to avoid lightspeed or near weapons fire they still have very limited weapons capability of their own. You can only fit so much power in a small ship.

wrong. For it's size and cost, compared to a large capital ship, a fighter can do an amazing amount of damage.

real life example: midway. 'nuf said.

fiction example: A small, 1 man snub fighter fires on a ships briidge, exposing it to hard vacuum. The entire bridge crew is killed. Or perhaps it fires at a gun turret, hulling it. The fighter just paid for its self.

Remote controlled (with onboard AI in case contact is lost) kamikaze fighters. They'd have to be remote controlled because they'd be built entirely out of antimatter except for a little normal matter as fuel. Their hulls would be designed to reflect as much of the radiation spectrum as possible. Their primary design goal would be to use random evasive maneuvers to avoid being hit before crashing into the enemy capital ships.

It seems you guys are debating 3 entirely different battlefields at the same time.
1. WWII, deciding what weapons are effective in space based on WWII would be like deciding what weapons are effective in WWII based on ancient warfare.
2. Science fiction, in fiction whatever the author likes works.
3. Real space warfare which will probably use technologies we are not aware of today.

remote drones (ala Andromeda) with a rudimentary AI.

Fighters are useless.

Lightspeed weapons > Sublight fighters.

I thought the fighters in Star Wars were ftl. That being the case, I'll take them.

Also, in Babylon 5, it wasn't so much that the ships were ftl, but that they were able to create "gates" through third space.

Fighter air and space craft are the equivalent of light cavalry in previous centuries. They are the scouts, shock troops, guerrillas and mobile guard. They're fast and flexible and can do a lot of damage.

Uhmmm, i know i'm not one for making great threads but.
Where's the poll?
I like polls, poles and Poles, all good.
For my Fighter variant am i allowed to go with the Puddle Jumpers from Atlantis? I find the invisibility function would trump many of the disadvantages an ordinary fighter would have.

You're comparing WWI and WWII to space battles, which is a bit silly. Even if your fighter has the godlike omniscience to avoid lightspeed or near weapons fire they still have very limited weapons capability of their own. You can only fit so much power in a small ship. Probably why so many fighters across so many shows in Sci-fi lack decent shields. It's either shields or guns. Me, I'd go for drones and remote piloted vehicles. They have disadvantages, but when they blow up you're not losing countless hours of pilot training.

Actually it's a valid comparison, considering George Lucas used WWII movies as inspiration for his designs and battle scenes.

Shields aren't the end all and be all. Some are, like X-Wings, some are armored, like the Veritech, and some rely on maneuverability.

Very few sci fi universes actually use laser weaponry anymore. Mostly you see pulse cannons, blasters, projectile weapons and such, all of which move at sublight speed.

Uhmmm, i know i'm not one for making great threads but.
Where's the poll?
I like polls, poles and Poles, all good.
For my Fighter variant am i allowed to go with the Puddle Jumpers from Atlantis? I find the invisibility function would trump many of the disadvantages an ordinary fighter would have.

I forgot to add the poll.

I forgot to add the poll.

Isn't there a function that allows you to create a poll even after a thread is made? i'm not to sure but from what i hear there is.
*nudges Neo Bretonnia*

Fighters are useless.

Lightspeed weapons > Sublight fighters.

Especially in space. Now in atmosphere, there's some need.

Massive props to the new Battlestar Galactica for not committing the sin of having their vipers BANK IN A VACUUM. The attitudinal jets make for more convincing spaceflight as well as ratchets up the respect level for the skill of viper pilots several orders of magnitude.

Did anyone read the halo books because if you have Sentinels in the book Onyx (the one I am reading now) while they are not considered Fighters alot of them when grouped together had enough firepower to take out a covenant battleship which really tells you how much damage small things can produced when working together.

Isn't there a function that allows you to create a poll even after a thread is made? i'm not to sure but from what i hear there is.
*nudges Neo Bretonnia*

I've been looking but if such a function exists, it's cleverly hidden...

I've been looking but if such a function exists, it's cleverly hidden...

well that's what some other posters told me, when i had to down a thread because i left out the poll option, apparently it's under, edit post then i think it's advanced something something. sorry i don't really know myself.
nevermind, it's not your fault you're forgetful.;)

well that's what some other posters told me, when i had to down a thread because i left out the poll option, apparently it's under, edit post then i think it's advanced something something. sorry i don't really know myself.
nevermind, it's not your fault you're forgetful.;)

Yah I tried those steps too.

Forgetful? Me?

....what were we talking about?

Actually it's a valid comparison, considering George Lucas used WWII movies as inspiration for his designs and battle scenes.

Shields aren't the end all and be all. Some are, like X-Wings, some are armored, like the Veritech, and some rely on maneuverability.

Very few sci fi universes actually use laser weaponry anymore. Mostly you see pulse cannons, blasters, projectile weapons and such, all of which move at sublight speed.

It's not a valid comparison just because George Lucas did it. That just means someone with way more money than you, I, or everyone else on NSG combined will ever see made the same silly assumptions.

As for speed of weaponry I'd have to dig to find out a phaser's transmission speed and the "Turbo laser" from SW. I'm not committed enough to this debate to do that.

It's not a valid comparison just because George Lucas did it. That just means someone with way more money than you, I, or everyone else on NSG combined will ever see made the same silly assumptions.

As for speed of weaponry I'd have to dig to find out a phaser's transmission speed and the "Turbo laser" from SW. I'm not committed enough to this debate to do that.

That's ok I'm not that committed to it either, but I did read on a website once that made a pretty strong case for pointing out that while the SW weaponry might be CALLED turbolasers, they did not, in fact, represent laser weaponry.

They cited the following reasons:

-When a turbolaser battery fires, there is noticeable recoil. That implies that whatever's coming out of that barrel has mass. It might be a ball of plasma, it might be some kind of high energy projectile, but whatever it is, it's not light.

-The blast from a turbolaser shot propagates through space at a velocity we can detect with the human eye. We can watch it travel across the screen. This is especially noticeable in the beginning of Episode 4 when the ISD is chasing Leia's ship. They move fast, but not too fast to be seen, as a laser would. The simple fact that it's possible to dodge incoming fire rules out a lightspeed weapon.

-The impact from a hit from a turbolaser causes considerable damage in the local area of the hit. Things explode. A laser would simply cut through the target (As portrayed in Babylon 5, one of the few sci fi universes where true laser weapons are regularly employed.)

That's ok I'm not that committed to it either, but I did read on a website once that made a pretty strong case for pointing out that while the SW weaponry might be CALLED turbolasers, they did not, in fact, represent laser weaponry.

They cited the following reasons:

-When a turbolaser battery fires, there is noticeable recoil. That implies that whatever's coming out of that barrel has mass. It might be a ball of plasma, it might be some kind of high energy projectile, but whatever it is, it's not light.

-The blast from a turbolaser shot propagates through space at a velocity we can detect with the human eye. We can watch it travel across the screen. This is especially noticeable in the beginning of Episode 4 when the ISD is chasing Leia's ship. They move fast, but not too fast to be seen, as a laser would. The simple fact that it's possible to dodge incoming fire rules out a lightspeed weapon.

-The impact from a hit from a turbolaser causes considerable damage in the local area of the hit. Things explode. A laser would simply cut through the target (As portrayed in Babylon 5, one of the few sci fi universes where true laser weapons are regularly employed.)

B5 Shadow weapons. Seeing those for the first time I first thought, "fuckin' COOL!" -- and then I thought, aside from the noise, SOMEbody finally got it right.

B5 Shadow weapons. Seeing those for the first time I first thought, "fuckin' COOL!" -- and then I thought, aside from the noise, SOMEbody finally got it right.

I think sound effects are something we're always going to have in Sci fi space battles because although unrealistic, they're cool as hell and without them it would still seem strange and boring.

I think sound effects are something we're always going to have in Sci fi space battles because although unrealistic, they're cool as hell and without them it would still seem strange and boring.

Firefly did the no sound in space bit. Worked pretty well. A bit jarring at first, but you learn to love it.

I'd like to have a squadron of Arc-170s. Although they took 2 or 3 (according to the SW database it was three, but in the movies I seem to remember only two)clones pilots to operate, and they seemed to be terrible pilots, those star fighters looked pretty awesome, and that is all that really matters, right?

Firefly did the no sound in space bit. Worked pretty well. A bit jarring at first, but you learn to love it.

Yeah, but then again there wasn't much in the way of space battles in Firefly, or even in Serenity. Not anything like SW or B5.

Yah I tried those steps too.

Forgetful? Me?

....what were we talking about?

chips! no no, something like that, uh, hips? nah....ships great space ships, and how i wanted a poll and how it's not going to happen. oh and invisible ships are the best ones.

Gunstars. *nod*

Gunstars. *nod*

Death Blossom FTW!

Mobile Suits.

http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w295/may17778/Aries.jpg

Mobile Suits.

I was just thinking that, but they are a bit large for fighters.

Borg spheres.

I'm pretty sure those are capital class vessels.

Not X-wings, but B-wings!

A-wings

Screw fighters, give me a Molecular Disruption Device and I'll obliterate your fleet before you even realized that that wedge of frigates coming in fast isn't just a decoy to distract you from my ships-of-the-line.

The F-302 people. Missiles and energy weapons. Capable of air to ground stuff. It is the ultimate space fighter.

Mobile Suits.

http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w295/may17778/Aries.jpg

*mumbles something about damn mechs and grumbles away*

Valkyrie Missle Frigates (Brood War)

OK, if we're using frigates, then I will employ Rifters from EVE Online. No finer warship exists.

Valkyrie Missle Frigates (Brood War)

Valkyrie... I think I´ve seen these fighters on an anime. Now, if I could only remember which anime...

First thought was a Veritech based on the Su-35 (not on the F-14 as the original, I don't like variable geometry on interceptors).

Then again, I'd choose a zerg rush of unmanned TIE Interceptors, remotely piloted by a horde of pimply-faced 16-years-old Star Wars geeks who think it's a just a game.

The Incom T-65 X-Wing is fantastic... It'd be my choice.

While fighters can be useful under some circumstances, it depends on the technology. In a hard Sci-fi setting, they would suposedly be impractical, though I'm not entirely sure why. I think it has to do with the fuel requirements, life support, etc making the fighter so large it might as well be another capital ship.

In Star Wars, fighters can be useful, but generaly not on their own. Take the battle of Naboo, where the Naboo fighters were unable to penetrate the shields of what was essentially an armed cargo ship. It took a Powerful force-sensative with a rediculous ammount of dumb luck flying inside the hagner to win. And even then, we have to look at the millitary incompitance of the Neimoidians and the ludicris design flaw of a hanger with a passage leading right to the center of the ship, just perfect for firing a torpedo down.

There's also Endor of course. But Ackbar's order seemed to apply to the entire fleet, and its unreasonable to assume that the fighters who made the final attack run were the only ones to heed the order. In fact, I think the novlelization describes capital ships attacking Executor as well. That's where fighters are useful in Star Wars: to exploit weakness in a close battle. They generaly don't win a battle againt capital ships on their own without support, though.

While fighters can be useful under some circumstances, it depends on the technology. In a hard Sci-fi setting, they would suposedly be impractical, though I'm not entirely sure why. I think it has to do with the fuel requirements, life support, etc making the fighter so large it might as well be another capital ship.

I guess that, in hard sci-fi, it would be mostly because of the powerplants, engines and inertial dampers (you know you want them) taking an awful lot of space, but hey...

Anyway, I think that small craft are always useful, because of the low signature and the high numbers you can have. Also, they're a great anti-commando support.

The B-wing fighter/bomber. A little slow, but tough as nails and packs a real punch. Designed fuck up a Capital ship.

Of course, it's good to have some A-wings too for their speed and maneuverability. And a few X-wings for general purpose fighters are good too.

Yeah, so basically the Rebel Alliance's fighters at the Battle of Endor. But with more B-wings.

I can think of air-born fighters still being used to support ground assaults when more precision is needed than an orbital bombardment can provide, or, like you said, to support a commando force. As far as space-born fighters are concerned, I think I'd take either the Tie Defender, or if the maintenance costs are too high, the B-wing. The best Star Wars fighters, if you do want to fight cap. ships with them.;)

Yes, a B-wing/A-wing combo would be lethal. Or what might be seen as the Imperial equivalent, a Defender/Interceptor combo.

While fighters can be useful under some circumstances, it depends on the technology. In a hard Sci-fi setting, they would suposedly be impractical, though I'm not entirely sure why. I think it has to do with the fuel requirements, life support, etc making the fighter so large it might as well be another capital ship.

In Star Wars, fighters can be useful, but generaly not on their own. Take the battle of Naboo, where the Naboo fighters were unable to penetrate the shields of what was essentially an armed cargo ship. It took a Powerful force-sensative with a rediculous ammount of dumb luck flying inside the hagner to win. And even then, we have to look at the millitary incompitance of the Neimoidians and the ludicris design flaw of a hanger with a passage leading right to the center of the ship, just perfect for firing a torpedo down.

There's also Endor of course. But Ackbar's order seemed to apply to the entire fleet, and its unreasonable to assume that the fighters who made the final attack run were the only ones to heed the order. In fact, I think the novlelization describes capital ships attacking Executor as well. That's where fighters are useful in Star Wars: to exploit weakness in a close battle. They generaly don't win a battle againt capital ships on their own without support, though.

But the Imperial fleet had massive amounts of fighters as well, in fact outnumbering the Rebel fighter squadrons. It's been my understanding that virtually all ships of that size carry some fighters partly to defend against fighters.

I can think of air-born fighters still being used to support ground assaults when more precision is needed than an orbital bombardment can provide, or, like you said, to support a commando force. As far as space-born fighters are concerned, I think I'd take either the Tie Defender, or if the maintenance costs are too high, the B-wing. The best Star Wars fighters, if you do want to fight cap. ships with them.;)

Yes, a B-wing/A-wing combo would be lethal. Or what might be seen as the Imperial equivalent, a Defender/Interceptor combo.

It always seemed to me that the B and A wing fighters were made to be used together. The B-wing is big on armaments and defense, so is great for smashing up larger ships, while the A-wing is small and quick, well suited to intercepting any fighters that come to the target's defense.

But the Imperial fleet had massive amounts of fighters as well, in fact outnumbering the Rebel fighter squadrons. It's been my understanding that virtually all ships of that size carry some fighters partly to defend against fighters.

Give me a good battery of point defense lasers over a fighter squad for anti-fighter defense any day. Or drones.

Give me a good battery of point defense lasers over a fighter squad for anti-fighter defense any day. Or drones.
They're less mobile though, and fighters (robotic or human piloted) can be asigned to different tasks as well, precise ground attacks, escorts, sneak attacks.

Fighters would be most useful I think in the role of precision ground strikes. Let's say you're attacking a major City, or worse, a City World like Coruscant(Not that I'd try the latter unless I had absolutely no choice). Well, you'll probably want to capture certain key buildings intact, and unless you're both a monster and a moron, you'll want to avoid collateral damage as well. But with so many buildings and so much ellectronic interference, I wouldn't count on being able to reliably target a precission strike from orbit. So in go the fighters to wipe out a bunch of dug in insurgents in the middle of a ten mile high skyscraper.

God, that would be an awesome battle.:)

Another use would be to escort transports down. Plus, there's always parade days.;)

By the way, about what someone, can't recall who, sad about true laser weapons can give fighters a lot of trouble pretty soon in real life. See this little prototype: the THEL (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVxZ9IHTH2E). It can even shoot down several artillery shells. Imagine that being used against enemy fighters in the (near?) future, then they're truly screwed.

Actually, I think I rather have these: Bentusi Super Acolytes (http://shipyards.relicnews.com/bentusi/index.html). The epitome of unfair. Actually, all of the Bentusi ships are unfair. I think I should change my capital ship selection to the Bentusi mothership - multiple, multi-track ion beams plus it's a carrier capable of holding dozens of those broken fighters.

*mumbles something about damn mechs and grumbles away*

jealous? :p

Fighters are a hollywood convention. Small craft firing missles from long distances are viable as a way to increase your missile throw weight, but they won't be engaging in dogfights.

I'd choose the Cylon Raider (New Version). Lots of missiles and no worries about losing crew.

Give me the latest in VF tech. They CAN go FTL and they HAVE taken out capital ships.

I thought I replied here. Looks like I didn't.

Wraiths and Valkyries from StarCraft.

I would go with a E-wing/B-wing combo. I piced the E-wing over the A because it seemss to me that it's a more reliable fighter. Also, fighters can totally take capital ships with torpedo runs. And as for drones, we have all seen the effectiveness of Scarabs, Droid Starfighters, and even soul powered Ssi-ruuk fighters all eventually lost to HUMAN PILOTS.

And if we go extreme, I would like a fleet of Sun Crushers, being produced by two or three Star Forges, and to cap it all off, a fully active Centerpoint Station. All crewed by Jedi.

Another use would be to escort transports down.

When your opponent can lurk anywhere in the system firing ammo that is either barely detectable or completely undectetable until it hits you no amount of escorting is going to save you - Escort fighters have no benefit, except making the escorted vessel more easily detectable.

Same applies to planetary bombarding - Throwing a kinetic, guided, dumb, ammo which doesn't have to worry about heat shielding or having enough fuel for a return trip from anywhere within lightminutes or -hours of the target obsoletes any use fighters have.

Heck, even current tech space probes are capable of "precision bombing" another planet with their limited velocity and need to worry about soft landing.

edit:
The exception I can see would be a modular capital ship model where a loose congregation of fighters could act as a single ship. The modular structure, better mobility and divisibility would improve survivability against dumb kinetic ammo attacks and even offer limited protection against HE weapons (nuclear/anti-matter warheads) assuming enough loose 'formation'


edit 2:
Regardless, as my fighter fleet I'd take the Kilrathi arsenal: Gotta love asymmetric designs and single minded ships like Jalthi. :cool:

Tie-fighters, cuz those are the only ones I can recall.:p

The standard TIE fighter doesn't have shields. Neither does a Viper, Wraith Dart, or Goa'uld Death Glider. Since it has shields, 4 laser cannons, and proton torpedo launchers, an X-Wing with an experienced pilot would chew any of them up and spit them out.

I've got to say, Fighters are pretty useless.

The distances between ships would be far too great to use fighters, and those fighters, if used, could be easily be picked off one by one as they try to get to their target.

The Fact is, most modern science fiction is pretty crappy in terms of realism. Take Star Wars for example, do you honestly believe that a single mini-van sized fighter can take down a freakin' moon?

The very idea that you could build a single pilot ship that would be of any use in space is laughable. I mean, come on, you'd have to carry all your life support and fuel and such, and in the time it would take you to get to the other ship, the ship would already be dead from the long ranged weapons from the launching ship.

In all honesty, if you MUST throw weaponized hunks of metal out of your Capital ship or such, you may as well just shoot a couple of missiles. They'd do a hell of a lot more damage then the little itty bitty guns your TIE of Viper could fit.

To sum it up:
What 'looks cool' for TV, is rarely practical (or even doable) for a 'real life' situation.

The Executor, as well as both Death Stars, were destroyed by A-Wings and Y-Wings, not by a capital ship.

And lest we think a fictional story can have no validity in reality, Pearl Harbor was laid waste by fighters. The Japanese fleet at Midway was defeated by fighters. The Bismarck was sunk by fighters.

Resource intensive they may be, but fighters, when properly employed, offer a lot of bang for the buck.

A-Wings weren't around during the first Death Star. That was X-Wings and Y-Wings. And X-Wings were around during the Endor battle, too. Wedge was piloting an X-Wing when he took out part of the second Death Star's reactor. Executor was destroyed in the Endor battle, when a damaged A-Wing rammed the Executor's main bridge.

Fighter vs capital ship. Fighter loses, hundreds and hundreds of fighters lose.

You're forgetting comparative costs. Carriers gained dominance as force projection in WWII onwards for a variety of reasons, but among them, the most prominent was this. You could make fighters and pilots a lot more cheaply than you could make battleships.

So what if you lose a hundred fighter bombers taking down a capital ship? Likely the capital ship cost more, took more time to build, and had a bigger crew complement. You still come off winning.

And generally, fighter bombers or pure bombers can carry effective anti-shipping weapons and put them to better use than drone fighters, unless you have human level AI.

OK, if we're using frigates, then I will employ Rifters from EVE Online. No finer warship exists.

Give me a Manticore any day.

Let's look at Star Wars fighters. They're not very fast, they're unshielded, very short range, and weak firepower. If the Star Wars verse had any decent shielding anywhere they'd be a joke, to say nothing of targetting computers. The empire deploys them in absolute swarms and they're pretty well ignored. Against a capital ship they do absolutely nothing to their shields. Now they can be useful due to the peculiarity of SW shields not blocking physical objects. Useful as rams. Though again this makes one wonder why a mass driver won't be just as effective without the kamikaze aspect.

Remember episode 3, the starting battle. The evil ships fired droids at the jedi fighters. Fucking droids, that went through whatever shields the fighter had (if any). Now ignoring the absurdity of firing robots instead of say, bullets, this shows an important point. Fighters aren't hard to hit, and they're not shielded sufficiently. If a fucking Jedi can't dodge how can a normal shlub?

Fighter vs capital ship. Fighter loses, hundreds and hundreds of fighters lose.

All the Rebel fighters (X-Wing, A-Wing, Y-Wing, and B-Wing) had shields, and all had hyperdrive engines. The A-Wing is considered one of the fastest fighters in the Star Wars universe, with the X-Wing not far behind. The Y-Wing is a slow, lumbering pig though. Also, on the imperial side, the TIE Advanced and TIE Defender also have shields and hyperdrives.

Finally, here's a little article about the viability of fighters against capital ships.

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Trench_Run_Defense

The F-302 people. Missiles and energy weapons. Capable of air to ground stuff. It is the ultimate space fighter.

Sorry, no energy weapons. The F-302 has missiles and rail guns.

http://stargate.wikia.com/wiki/F-302

And I'd still take an X-Wing over an F-302. The F-302 is unshielded, so the X-Wing would be all over it like a pack of dogs on a 3 legged cat.

Okay, you're completely right that Star Wars fighters cant hurt a Cap. ship under normal circumstances, on their own(unless in huge numbers). But they're not that bad. They did finish the Death Stars, and helped damage the Executor, before the final kamikazi ended it. And I must take exception to your assertion that Star Wars shields are weak. The Executor took a hell of a pounding before its shields went down. The Death Star shield projected from Endor would have destroyed any rebel ship that crashed into it. The fighters in the Battle of Naboo couldn't penetrate the shield on a damn transport. As for the matter of solid objects going through shields, I can see how one might think that from watching the movies alone. But supposedly, at least some Star Wars ships also have particle shields which can stop solid objects, as well as just the ray shields.

Interesting. So you say no need for bombers, a CAP, escort, a small, difficult to hit craft?

It would seem like just about every Sci Fi genere except Star Trek disagrees with you :)
Actually reality disagrees with most SF. There really is no need for manned fighter craft and a lot of drawbacks to them. Manning a craft means it won't be capable of the moves of a bot, it won't be as small, it'll need enough fuel to go out and come back, etc. BSG handles the problem of manned fighters by saying the machines can take control of your robots and use them against you but some good adaptive firewalls would probably solve that problem and if you have the tech to go faster than light then you probably also have ther ability to make pretty sophisticated AI. You probably still want a few small craft to ferry people and supplies between ships and a few more small craft to defend said carriers and the main ships but it'd be little more than a missile bus, a bot with guns. Even today we're moving in that direction with RC fighters and spy planes and robot mini-tanks are on the horizon.

Also, try to look at it like this: fighers in space being launched from space ships would be like little boats and subs being launched from a surface cruiser. It's not the same as a ship with planes.

The reason that you see manned fighters in SF so often is because no one wants to read about or watch the life and times of a drone on escort missions. They'd have no personality, they'd exist to serve a function, it'd be like a TV show about a roomba.

Did anyone read the halo books because if you have Sentinels in the book Onyx (the one I am reading now) while they are not considered Fighters alot of them when grouped together had enough firepower to take out a covenant battleship which really tells you how much damage small things can produced when working together.

So I am guessing no one here reads the Halo books? All I am saying is, alot of Sentinels, small packages, heck probably easy to reporduce, small, difficult to detect, able to take out fighters pretty easily, multi-uses for space and ground missions, a enough of them I am willing to bet can take on a large Cylon Fleet in BSG. And the best part is, they learn with each mistakes, adapt, and they are drones, not humans. Heck smaller than any fighter and has more uses than any fighter in those sci-fi movies. Got to give them some credit.

The reason that you see manned fighters in SF so often is because no one wants to read about or watch the life and times of a drone on escort missions. They'd have no personality, they'd exist to serve a function, it'd be like a TV show about a roomba.
Aye, but that's also true of the feelings of the general population. Tales of derring do by manly men in space fighters? Hurray! Some robots? Eh, nah, they're robots.

Recently we've had a bunch of songs about "working class heroes" or whatever utter bullshit, on the other hand "I fucking loves the car-building robots" would probably not be so popular. Unless you're really into Kraftwerk or something.

Also you guys when you talk about how unrealistic fighters are in BSG your forgetting alot of stuff and so you really haven't done your homework. I don't care who you are there is no excuse for this, fighters in BSG can be equiped with nukes which provide a really big bang for your bucks. Manned pilots are realistic as while they can be slower than the bot fighters they can be more maneuverable and are harder to fall into traps in which bots seem to constantly get into. And biggest advantage humans have is innovation. They can create new tactics, ideas, or merge old ones together. The most bots can say tend to go along this "What you do I learn how to do, whatever you try I learn how to handle it, When your throw your new tactic at me I am weak once but I learn twice." Humans tend to create new things on the fly while bots watch and learn things. And those not on the same network don't learn as fast. Example Two cylon fleets are seperate and lost communications. Fleet A and B. Fleet G is the human fleet. Fleet A meets fleet G and fleet A retreats almost distroyed. Fleet A tells Cylon Fleet C the tactic and Fleet C attacks and the same tactic on fleet A fails on Fleet C and the humans retreat. Fleet B then finds Fleet G and fleet G decides to try the same tactic again. Fleet B is destroyed.

Also you guys when you talk about how unrealistic fighters are in BSG your forgetting alot of stuff and so you really haven't done your homework.
BSG is one of the only SF works to actually come up with a good reason for having manned fighters. The reason is the Cylons could control bots but not people. Not many other SF has that excuse.

Manned pilots are realistic as while they can be slower than the bot fighters they can be more maneuverable and are harder to fall into traps in which bots seem to constantly get into.
No, just no. Manned fighters maneuverability is limited by the human operator. Not so with RC fighters and bots. Eliminating the pilot also reduces space that could be better occupied by weapons and fuel. Face it, bots are smaller and harder to hit.

And biggest advantage humans have is innovation. They can create new tactics, ideas, or merge old ones together. The most bots can say tend to go along this "What you do I learn how to do, whatever you try I learn how to handle it, When your throw your new tactic at me I am weak once but I learn twice." Humans tend to create new things on the fly while bots watch and learn things.
Actually that's how humans learn. Bots have the advantage in that once they have a sufficiently advanced AI and can produce replacements with the experience of the lost they'd be able to quickly outsmart even experienced human pilots and wouldn't need to worry about suicide runs. If one team in TF could respawn they'd lose no matter how crappy their opposing team started out as.

If you have a sufficiently advanced AI the bots will eventually always win.

And no, no one reads the Halo books. I read a couple of the StarCraft books and didn't think very highly of them. The Halo games are a celebration of mediocrity and overuse of SF clichés so the books most likely suck fucking donkey balls.

BSG is one of the only SF works to actually come up with a good reason for having manned fighters. The reason is the Cylons could control bots but not people. Not many other SF has that excuse.


No, just no. Manned fighters maneuverability is limited by the human operator. Not so with RC fighters and bots. Eliminating the pilot also reduces space that could be better occupied by weapons and fuel. Face it, bots are smaller and harder to hit.


Actually that's how humans learn. Bots have the advantage in that once they have a sufficiently advanced AI and can produce replacements with the experience of the lost they'd be able to quickly outsmart even experienced human pilots and wouldn't need to worry about suicide runs. If one team in TF could respawn they'd lose no matter how crappy their opposing team started out as.

If you have a sufficiently advanced AI the bots will eventually always win.

And no, no one reads the Halo books. I read a couple of the StarCraft books and didn't think very highly of them. The Halo games are a celebration of mediocrity and overuse of SF clichés so the books most likely suck fucking donkey balls.



The only bot that I will give props to is the Halo Sentinels. That is it. And if you look at them in the movies and the books you'll probably give them props to. And if your willing to take the time to play a game you might as well take the time to do some background on it and read the books point blank honesty.

Bots AI will as intelligent as they are they always tend to lose in the end. They can only last so long and even if they wipe out a civilization the world pretty much just dies. Which comes responsibility and deciding to do genocide will always bite them in the ass because honestly, I'll dare you to name a single fricking civilization that'd let others completely wipe them out to extinction. At least one person will rise up and fight.

Take back the donkey balls for the halo books, at least they are better than some books that came out with some of the games and your BSG books I myself think they sucked.

Advancement of technology has always been limited to humans. They are the inventors and they are the ones that cause changes in the code 80% of the time. Plus being unpredictable kind of helps to. And yes while humans do learn and they learn constantly they are learning before computers each and every time. More often than not humans are likely to surprise the Cylons in BSG or ambush them, or during a fight when the cylons popped up figure out a way to attack and defend themselves.

Humans if skilled enough can outmaneuver bots. And being unpredictable and with a set of skills it is difficult for even the bots to determine how to attack the humans. And dealing with the space issue, in all honesty, its really not that much space your talking about really, and you will always have space no matter what or how you try it because you need space to keep everything from overheating and seperate the wires. The one thing I'd like less in most Sci-fi movies is :fluffle: and more off :mp5::sniper::upyours::headbang::gundge:

Oh and computers cannot think, they can set code up to pretend like they can think but honestly they cannot think in the same since as us and so in the end they cannot outsmart us because in order to outsmart something you need a brain and a motherboard does not count as one.

Sorry, no energy weapons. The F-302 has missiles and rail guns.

http://stargate.wikia.com/wiki/F-302

And I'd still take an X-Wing over an F-302. The F-302 is unshielded, so the X-Wing would be all over it like a pack of dogs on a 3 legged cat.

You'd be surprised at how fast a 3 legged cat can move ;)

Actually reality disagrees with most SF. There really is no need for manned fighter craft and a lot of drawbacks to them. Manning a craft means it won't be capable of the moves of a bot, it won't be as small, it'll need enough fuel to go out and come back, etc. BSG handles the problem of manned fighters by saying the machines can take control of your robots and use them against you but some good adaptive firewalls would probably solve that problem and if you have the tech to go faster than light then you probably also have ther ability to make pretty sophisticated AI. You probably still want a few small craft to ferry people and supplies between ships and a few more small craft to defend said carriers and the main ships but it'd be little more than a missile bus, a bot with guns. Even today we're moving in that direction with RC fighters and spy planes and robot mini-tanks are on the horizon.

Also, try to look at it like this: fighers in space being launched from space ships would be like little boats and subs being launched from a surface cruiser. It's not the same as a ship with planes.

The reason that you see manned fighters in SF so often is because no one wants to read about or watch the life and times of a drone on escort missions. They'd have no personality, they'd exist to serve a function, it'd be like a TV show about a roomba.

I disagree. Some of your logic sounds a lot like the military doctrine prior to... I believe it was General Marshall... who proved that fighters were vastly more capable and useful than previously imagined. The Japanese took this lesson to heart and used it to great effect at pearl Harbor...

But I won't rehash that again.

Suffice it to say that a fighter is superior to a drone because:

1)The presence of a pilot brings innovation and instinct to the table.
2)A fighter is small but can pack a punch orders of magnitude greater than itself
3)A pilot can't be confused by a software glitch or an enemy bug to cause it to turn on his/her own side
4)A pilot can strategize and use tactics in sich a way as to give him/her an advantage over a robotic drone adversary.

Ideal solution: Disposable remote-control drones.

No AI on board means no hacking. A secure frequency-hopping signal (or some sort of subspace signal depending on your SF universe) would prevent hijacking. No pilot on board means less concern about inertia and either a smaller size (no life support or cockpit) or a bigger payload. You still have the advantages of a human pilot, but the risks are reduced. Also, if you're boarded, the pilots are immediately available to help repel boarders.

Ideal solution: Disposable remote-control drones.

No AI on board means no hacking. A secure frequency-hopping signal (or some sort of subspace signal depending on your SF universe) would prevent hijacking. No pilot on board means less concern about inertia and either a smaller size (no life support or cockpit) or a bigger payload. You still have the advantages of a human pilot, but the risks are reduced. Also, if you're boarded, the pilots are immediately available to help repel boarders.

1)Jam the signal, drones neutralized.
2)Why would there be pilots aboard to help repel invaders if you're not using manned fighters?

Sorry, no energy weapons. The F-302 has missiles and rail guns.

http://stargate.wikia.com/wiki/F-302

And I'd still take an X-Wing over an F-302. The F-302 is unshielded, so the X-Wing would be all over it like a pack of dogs on a 3 legged cat.

They put modulators on their missiles to penetrate shields.

Oh yeah, or the Pkunk ship.

1)Jam the signal, drones neutralized.
2)Why would there be pilots aboard to help repel invaders if you're not using manned fighters?

1. Pilots are on the mother ship / carrier. They are available to defend the mother ship / carrier in the event that it is boarded.

2. How do you jam a frequency-hopping signal or a subspace relay signal? I know there's always going to be a battle between communication tech and sabotage tech, but you can't be sure of success against the tech of the future.

The only bot that I will give props to is the Halo Sentinels. That is it. And if you look at them in the movies and the books you'll probably give them props to. And if your willing to take the time to play a game you might as well take the time to do some background on it and read the books point blank honesty.
I have. The games, while competent shooters, do nothing but tread ground that has been troden before by better games. Many of the weapons look and sound like toys, the level design (especially from the first one) is boring and repetative, etc. The story sucks a fat one because it's nothing but a parade of themes that have been better used in other works. Halo is a mini-Ringworld with head-crabs in disguise and a whole long damn list of other themes and bits that were blatently ripped off. Halo is nothing but an insipid boom-fest for console-tards like yourself who know nothing of good SF or good action games, you think Halo is great because you just don't know anything better.

Bots AI will as intelligent as they are they always tend to lose in the end. They can only last so long and even if they wipe out a civilization the world pretty much just dies. Which comes responsibility and deciding to do genocide will always bite them in the ass because honestly, I'll dare you to name a single fricking civilization that'd let others completely wipe them out to extinction. At least one person will rise up and fight.
Are you foreign and just have a poor grasp of the engrish ranguage or are you a stupid fucking kid? The only part of that paragraph that made any sense was the last sentence. One person is never going to be enough to take on a fucking army. Real life and good SF isn't a game.

Take back the donkey balls for the halo books, at least they are better than some books that came out with some of the games and your BSG books I myself think they sucked.
I didn't say the BSG books, I was talking about the series. It's a good series. Good pacing, good plots, almost silent space battles (they said they tried the silent thing like Firefly but decided against it and I can let that slide), good limits. Firefly and the new BSG are examples of how to do SF right.

Advancement of technology has always been limited to humans. They are the inventors and they are the ones that cause changes in the code 80% of the time. Plus being unpredictable kind of helps to. And yes while humans do learn and they learn constantly they are learning before computers each and every time. More often than not humans are likely to surprise the Cylons in BSG or ambush them, or during a fight when the cylons popped up figure out a way to attack and defend themselves.
You're missing the point. A sufficiently advanced AI would adapt to any tactic and because machines don't take as long to replace their fallen they will eventually overrun any enemy that doesn't wipe them out with the first salvo.

Humans if skilled enough can outmaneuver bots.
No they can't. We are fragile creatures, it takes less than a pound of pressure to cut human flesh. People can take You won't be able to take 9 Gs for very long even if your equipment can. Remove the pilot and the craft becomes smaller and more maneuverable.

And being unpredictable and with a set of skills it is difficult for even the bots to determine how to attack the humans.
Each attack could only be used once. After that it would be recognized and there would be a counter even if that involved a sucide attack by the bot to take out the pilot. Bots don't have to worry about dying.

And dealing with the space issue, in all honesty, its really not that much space your talking about really, and you will always have space no matter what or how you try it because you need space to keep everything from overheating and seperate the wires.
Some guided missiles are smaller than midgets. The computers for a bot fighter wouldn't need to be much bigger so the craft would be smaller and harder to hit. Operating in swarms they'd chew through any manned opposition and a factory would simply rebuild the losses.

Oh and computers cannot think, they can set code up to pretend like they can think but honestly they cannot think in the same since as us and so in the end they cannot outsmart us because in order to outsmart something you need a brain and a motherboard does not count as one.
Do you know what AI means? An artificial intelligence is a thinking computer. A computer that can learn and adapt.

I disagree. Some of your logic sounds a lot like the military doctrine prior to... I believe it was General Marshall... who proved that fighters were vastly more capable and useful than previously imagined. The Japanese took this lesson to heart and used it to great effect at pearl Harbor...
"Fighters make sense in surface naval operations because a fighter can go to places where the carrier or cruiser can't. The fighter can also go to places where the big ships can't see, because of the curvature of the earth.

Unfortunately, there's no horizon for targets to hide behind in space. Even if you have something short of everyone sees everyone, it's hard(er) to justify fighters seeing things their carriers can't, just because carriers can carry bigger sensors, and space is a very sensor friendly environment.

Fighters do make sense in an orbital reference frame context, where, well, curvature of the earth matters, and where going into atmosphere matters. But this turns fighter carriers into "brown water" vessels that work in the tide pools of planetary gravity wells, which isn't the role you see them doing in fiction, which tends to take WWII carrier ops or modern USN carrier ops and apply an SFnal veneer.

Note that that's all mission specific, and only mildly tech related.

What do fighters do better than, or exclusively related to, larger ships? Answer this, and you get a reason for fighters in a setting.

In terms of pure offensive firepower, there's very little you can do with a fighter that a cruise missile can't do better in a space game context.

Of course, the best reason to have fighters is because they make your game more funnerer. But it does kind of help to figure out what mission they're doing."
-Ken Burnside

Suffice it to say that a fighter is superior to a drone because:
1)The presence of a pilot brings innovation and instinct to the table.
Which is pointless if it's getting pummeled by a swarm drones that have no desire for self-preservation.

2)A fighter is small but can pack a punch orders of magnitude greater than itself
So can a drone. And a drone doesn't need fuel to come back or for the life-support system so it'll be lighter and smaller.

3)A pilot can't be confused by a software glitch or an enemy bug to cause it to turn on his/her own side
You try hacking your way through an adaptive firewall while under fire from 200+ missiles armed with nukes and guns.

4)A pilot can strategize and use tactics in sich a way as to give him/her an advantage over a robotic drone adversary.
You try strategizing while under fire from 200+ missiles armed with nukes and guns.

TIE fighters.

TIE fighters.
Suck.

Spitfires & Hurricanes in a 2:1 ratio.

They put modulators on their missiles to penetrate shields.

Goa'uld shields, yes. That doesn't mean they'll work against an X-Wing's shields, though. Remember, the modulators didn't work against the Ori shields either.

Goa'uld shields, yes. That doesn't mean they'll work against an X-Wing's shields, though. Remember, the modulators didn't work against the Ori shields either.
You mean the shields created by the aliens with inherent god-like powers, not just tech-based like the Goa'uld's?

I'm pretty sure the Republic wasn't as hardcore on their shield technology as god-like aliens and super intelligent Borg-like microbots from Stargate.

I think fighters can be pretty useless unless you have huge numbers like the Empire does. In that case it definately would be the TIE Fighters

The Executor, as well as both Death Stars, were destroyed by A-Wings and Y-Wings, not by a capital ship.

That's because being destroyed by a fighter is more dramatically interesting than being destroyed by a capital ship.

And lest we think a fictional story can have no validity in reality, Pearl Harbor was laid waste by fighters. The Japanese fleet at Midway was defeated by fighters. The Bismarck was sunk by fighters.

Resource intensive they may be, but fighters, when properly employed, offer a lot of bang for the buck.

Yes.... airplanes are very effective against maritime naval ships:

Airplanes can go faster than naval ships because the latter must move through, yet float upon water. Airplanes can fly, operating in a third dimension that naval ships simply can't operate in. Airplanes can hide beyond range of naval ship weapons simply by flying higher, where of course a ship can't reach. Airplanes have more efficient maneuverability than naval ships due to their nature. Airplanes effectively use gravity as one of their weapons, esp. in WWII bombings you mention.

In space, there is no water/air distinction. Capital ships and fighters both operate in the same medium. There is no reason a fighter should move faster than a ship in space, since both use reaction mass engines and size (i.e friction in water, aerodynamics in air) is irrelevant. Thus fighters can't 'hide above the clouds,' nor can they move in at a particularly faster rate, strike, and high-tail it out of there.

And in comparison to drones, they are a waste of resources. Having a man in the loop means you need life support temperatures, atmosphere, and gee-force limits. Once this happens there is no advantage over the larger ships, except you have a small ship that can carry less payload, have less delta-V, less power, less everything.

What you call space "fighters" are nothing more than small, one-manned spaceships, not inherently different from large, crewed spaceships. And they exist in most scifi series not because they're particularly plausible as a space weapon platform, but because they are dramatically interesting.

in fact, Star Trek eventually did give in to the space fighter phenomenon. In the Dominion War they often referred to Dominion 'fighters,' Cardassian fighters, and then you got shuttles and runabouts, which are basically fighter-like.

But from a realistic science fictional perspective, space fighters don't make sense except with magical handwavium technology.

Fighters make sense depending on the weapons being used. Large ships are going to use tracking turrets which have to hit small targets flying everywhere where as fighters attack a massive target directly. The pilots just point and shoot.

If you are using Star Trek to justify fighter uselessness, think of the Handwavium required for phasers to work in the way they do. Omnidirectional light show weapons that fire out of nowhere in particular? Come on; I don't think they even store them in real space. Ever seen a phaser bank? No. Of course they don't need fighters, they use magic.

Fighters make sense depending on the weapons being used. Large ships are going to use tracking turrets which have to hit small targets flying everywhere where as fighters attack a massive target directly. The pilots just point and shoot.

There is no reason a large ship can't have weapons that track fast enough to hit small targets. Like missiles, which will easily outmaneuver the fighters. The large ship will have more power, which can mean among other things greater range for the beam weapons. A range which compares favorably with the endurance capabilities of a fighter, unless we're not talking lasers or particle beams and talking technobabble boom bolts. Same with the sensor range. The pilots wouldn't even get close enough to point and shoot.

If you are using Star Trek to justify fighter uselessness

I wasn't, I was merely pointing out that Star Trek was not (as the OP held) an example of a fighter-less universe. But that too was a drama preference anyway.

There is no reason a large ship can't have weapons that track fast enough to hit small targets. Like missiles, which will easily outmaneuver the fighters.
Missiles track by-themselves. They arn't turrets. Also, yes, missiles > fighters. I've played Homeworld. Probably the only game with enough variety of weapons and ships that are actually configured to make any scenario likely (as opposed to just the strategy space stuff). Also, their beam weapons (well not in Cataclysm) are far more realistic than the magic beam weapons in Star Trek in that they take up a crapload of space.

The large ship will have more power, which can mean among other things greater range for the beam weapons.
Greater range adds to tracking difficult, though beam weapons do have even worse tracking at close range.

A range which compares favorably with the endurance capabilities of a fighter, unless we're not talking lasers or particle beams and talking technobabble boom bolts. Same with the sensor range. The pilots wouldn't even get close enough to point and shoot.
Missiles have their own range and bullets/mass drivers have infinite range.
Like I said, pilots have to be tracked properly to be shot down. Beam weapons, while powerful, are cumbersome and slow. Missiles are nasty for fighters unless they have jammers to screw with them or shielding. Mass driver turrets have to track and hit fighters.


I wasn't, I was merely pointing out that Star Trek was not (as the OP held) an example of a fighter-less universe. But that too was a drama preference anyway.
I've said before, no military in Star Trek really fields fighters. There are fighter, or at least corvette, class vehicles around but they mostly belong to side organizations.

Fighters make sense depending on the weapons being used. Large ships are going to use tracking turrets which have to hit small targets flying everywhere where as fighters attack a massive target directly. The pilots just point and shoot.
No, the cap ships will be using missiles that seek their targets and lasers or partical cannons which move at or nearly at the speed of light. Drones make some sense but the distances between them and their target will be huge. Manned fighters make no sense at all.

If you are using Star Trek to justify fighter uselessness, think of the Handwavium required for phasers to work in the way they do. Omnidirectional light show weapons that fire out of nowhere in particular? Come on; I don't think they even store them in real space. Ever seen a phaser bank? No. Of course they don't need fighters, they use magic.
Actually they have shown phaser banks and torpedo launchers and phaser arrays and have explained their operation. I'll say it again, mManned fighters make no sense.

The Executor, as well as both Death Stars, were destroyed by A-Wings and Y-Wings, not by a capital ship.

And lest we think a fictional story can have no validity in reality, Pearl Harbor was laid waste by fighters. The Japanese fleet at Midway was defeated by fighters. The Bismarck was sunk by fighters.

Resource intensive they may be, but fighters, when properly employed, offer a lot of bang for the buck.

QFT, capital ships are much more expensive, especially when you consider what a determined opponent using fighters can do against them (kamikazes would have been more effective if the pilots were actually given flight training, but that's just one example). As for space and the g-forces and everything, trying to have an argument over the different worlds that these fighters inhabit is a fool's errand. Oh, and it's incom x-wings, not infocom, noob.

Actually they have shown phaser banks and torpedo launchers and phaser arrays and have explained their operation. I'll say it again, mManned fighters make no sense.
No, they have shown torpedo bays. I've never seen a phaser bank. Laser beams just come flying out of nowhere in any direction they feel like shooting them. They take up no discernible space. They are cool sure, but unfeasible.

No, the cap ships will be using missiles that seek their targets and lasers or partical cannons which move at or nearly at the speed of light. Drones make some sense but the distances between them and their target will be huge. Manned fighters make no sense at all.
Where will they store these tons of laser cannons? I don't think particle beam weapons would easily be aimed on the fly. Lasers might be usable but they also require a good deal of room to mount.
Distance between them and the target? Their weapons will be small mass drivers or missiles. Both of which, being weapons with actual mass, will move indefinitely and it isn't really hard to hit something the size a capital ship would be. Especially since it would probably generate it's own gravity (however small) because of its size.

Also, the closer the fighters can get to the ship, the less likely they are to get hit. Lasers may be able to fire at light speed, but turrets can't rotate at it.
And since you like Star Trek, there are numerous battles about the Enterprise/Voyager getting a beat down because the opponent's ships are so small that they are fast and maneuverable enough to prevent the phasers from correctly targeting and hitting them.

Distance between them and the target?

The distance means that there is *nothing* a manned fighter can do better or more efficiently in space combat compared to a guided missile or unmanned drone.

However, even the usefulness of drones is in question when you can strike before any advance warning with relativistic kinetic weapons bombarding every defensive ship, orbital platform or planetary site to pieces without really even stepping into the system in the first place.

I have to say something. I've never been a big "space" fan. Where sci-fi has been concerned. I've seen a few animes and a few others. But I would have to hazzard logic over any sci-fi show off the list and here's where things get me.

Even if you had a large ship with X potent weaposns. A small army of fighters could probably take it out. And let me explain why.

Allowing for the fact that there could be lightspeed weapons. They are still manned and aimed by people, they still need to target the fighter. All of this takes time. So while if the fighter is caught in the crosshairs, they're pretty much screwed, getting them in thos crosshairs is a whole different story. Even if you allow them to be manned by a computer you still have to take consideration of the targetting system which would take time to get a decent shot at the enemy.

And if the enemy exhausts it's power firing at your fighters your big ship can take them out.

Also, yes, missiles > fighters. I've played Homeworld. Probably the only game with enough variety of weapons and ships that are actually configured to make any scenario likely (as opposed to just the strategy space stuff). Also, their beam weapons (well not in Cataclysm) are far more realistic than the magic beam weapons in Star Trek in that they take up a crapload of space.

I like Homeworld and HW2. But the fighters only work there tactically because they can easily outmaneuver big ships, and because the big ships can't usually destroy them all before they close to within their combat range. In real space, with distances of tens of thousands of kilometers, I don't think a fighter could close the distance before being picked off. And if it could, because it had an insanely fast engine + rugged design + possible magic, then the large ships would have them too, and could always maintain a long distance.

Greater range adds to tracking difficult, though beam weapons do have even worse tracking at close range.

Worse tracking at close range? Hrm? How does that work? There's less chance to miss, less lag between sensors and weapon speed.

Missiles have their own range and bullets/mass drivers have infinite range.

Theoretically. In combat, the range is dictated by the likelihood of it hitting the enemy ship or missile, which is determined by the speed of the projectile and the ability of the target to evade and/or shoot it down. It's always going to be a lower range than lasers or particle beams.

Like I said, pilots have to be tracked properly to be shot down. Beam weapons, while powerful, are cumbersome and slow.

Where are you getting this from? It's no more slow or cumbersome than any other high powered space weapon, like for example a fighter. For lasers you can just reflect the beam out of any one of multiple emitters. Like a disco ball.

I've said before, no military in Star Trek really fields fighters. There are fighter, or at least corvette, class vehicles around but they mostly belong to side organizations.

Oh... side organizations.

The distance means that there is *nothing* a manned fighter can do better or more efficiently in space combat compared to a guided missile or unmanned drone.
Then why arn't capital shits piloted as drones.

In real space, with distances of tens of thousands of kilometers,
And what exactly can be dine by capital ships at distances of tens of thousands of kilometers that fighters can't.

In real space, with distances of tens of thousands of kilometers
Uhu... you're going to have a hell of a time seeing your enemy at that kind of range, and they're going to have a very long time to react to any kind of projectile-based weapons.

No, they have shown torpedo bays. I've never seen a phaser bank. Laser beams just come flying out of nowhere in any direction they feel like shooting them. They take up no discernible space. They are cool sure, but unfeasible.
That's not completly true ;) I've seen it a couple of times, in the newest series (Enterprise, I só loved that, they also used normal dating, hurray!) you could've seen they installed a phaser cannon under the belly of the Enterprise. Also, I can remember a scene in another series, I think Voyager, where cou can see phasers "banks" on top of the ship. It was some kind of loading bar curved around the top of the ship, like around that buldge you see (since they're not completly flat most of the times). When they wanted to fire, you saw a light traveling down the bar, apperantly charging the phaser, and at the end of the bar the phaser beam was released. Just clearing it up ;)

But yea, what people say about laser weapons against fighters, the turrets firing the lasers first have to target and lock on the fighter long enough to tag, charge and eventually fire the laser at the fighter. Then, at least when we look at today's laser defence systems, the laser has to stay on the target long enough to cut through the armor. It's not just "PEW your dead!" ;)
Worse tracking at close range? Hrm? How does that work? There's less chance to miss, less lag between sensors and weapon speed.
Targets are harder to lock on at close range, because you have to turn your targeting mechanism much more when the target is closer. You can test it yourself, with your eye. If you want to follow something with your eye at close range, your eye goes up and down much more, if it's far away, it goes up and down less.
Where are you getting this from? It's no more slow or cumbersome than any other high powered space weapon, like for example a fighter.
Fighters aren't fixed, have much more degrees of freedom then turrets have. Turrets usually turn mechanicly, and not like fighters do with trusters. A really good example of that, are the Vipers from Battlestar Galactica. Just look at how they fight. I'm not seeing a capital ship doing that.

And what exactly can be dine by capital ships at distances of tens of thousands of kilometers that fighters can't.

...project power.

Uhu... you're going to have a hell of a time seeing your enemy at that kind of range, and they're going to have a very long time to react to any kind of projectile-based weapons.


Why exactly would it be hard to see?

And yes, projectile based weapons just can't compete at that range.


Targets are harder to lock on at close range, because you have to turn your targeting mechanism much more when the target is closer. You can test it yourself, with your eye. If you want to follow something with your eye at close range, your eye goes up and down much more, if it's far away, it goes up and down less.

Yeah that applies to like point-blank range. Again with the starfighter slinking past the slow weapons in time to save the day... ugh! Combat won't be at that range.

Fighters aren't fixed, have much more degrees of freedom then turrets have. Turrets usually turn mechanicly, and not like fighters do with trusters. A really good example of that, are the Vipers from Battlestar Galactica. Just look at how they fight. I'm not seeing a capital ship doing that.

I don't watch that show. Anyway, there's nothing hard about making small turrets either.

Then why arn't capital shits piloted as drones.
Because good sci-fi, even hard core, always has 'human' element - Machines warring against each other isn't as emotionally compelling. ;)

Technically speaking, cheapest and most economical way to do "battle" would be to send a flotilla of relatively small unmanned drones to enemy's solar system and let them build war machines there (eg. from out of Oort cloud material) and handle the "attack" (read: unilateral obliteration) by themselves.

Though, it still begs the question of motivation: What motivation is there to fight in or between interstellar societies?

Why exactly would it be hard to see?
The human eye can see anything of a reasonable size at 3 miles, tops. Tens of thousands of kilometres means you'll be needing extremely powerful telescopes to see things properly and in detail. Those are not small.
And yes, projectile based weapons just can't compete at that range.
In which case you're going to need incredibly large generators and massive amounts of coolant to use lasers of any real power. Again, an enormous burden on a ship.
I don't watch [BSG].
You should. It's the only decent sci-fi since Space : Above and Beyond.

Uhu... you're going to have a hell of a time seeing your enemy at that kind of range, and they're going to have a very long time to react to any kind of projectile-based weapons.

Except that projectile is moving at significant percentage of light speed and isn't necessarily any larger than a pea.

The difference between a large ship and a small ship is that large ship can produce enough energy to accelerate kinetic ammunition to enough high speeds while a small ship relies more on the kinetic energy it has acquired from the get go (ie. the speed of the mothership entering the system).

Except that projectile is moving at significant percentage of light speed and isn't necessarily any larger than a pea.
Uhu, in which case you're going to be packing incredibly vast amounts of propellant, the backblast from which is going to be enormous, and the possibility of its destruction and the complete obliteration of a ship is going to be pretty high.

Uhu, in which case you're going to be packing incredibly vast amounts of propellant, the backblast from which is going to be enormous, and the possibility of its destruction and the complete obliteration of a ship is going to be pretty high.

I don't think we're talking chemically propelled projectiles. Those have a definite limit as to how fast they can accelerate a thing.

So do electromagngetic accelerators. Relativistic projectiles are rather handwavium anyway.

I don't think we're talking chemically propelled projectiles. Those have a definite limit as to how fast they can accelerate a thing.

So do electromagngetic accelerators. Relativistic projectiles are rather handwavium anyway.
Aye, in which case you need umpteen megawatt generators. Size and vulnerability options once again.

Worse tracking at close range? Hrm? How does that work? There's less chance to miss, less lag between sensors and weapon speed.
The weapons may theoretically fire at the speed of light, but the turrets needed to aim them sure don't move at it.

Banshees.

...project power.

And how do you propose they project power at tens of thousands of kilometers.

Uhu, in which case you're going to be packing incredibly vast amounts of propellant, the backblast from which is going to be enormous, and the possibility of its destruction and the complete obliteration of a ship is going to be pretty high.

Well, one of the more exotic variants I've seen in scifi is self-destructing cannon powered by series of nuclear explosions....

However, I'm mainly referring to dull mass driver technology catching the enemy unaware: Accelerated light weight munition has a lot of destructive power as the force of impact is concentrated on a small area (add in small nuclear detonator activated right before impact to rip the target to shreds, or a gram of antimatter) but the kinetic energy of the ammunition isn't that large, maybe in order of terajoules for sub-100 kg ammunition, perhaps shaped like a needle for low radar cross section - Barely a magnitude larger than what modern cannons can pull off.


Besides, any manned small fighter will not have enough shielding to protect against neutron bombardment killing the pilot inside.

However, I'm mainly referring to dull mass driver technology catching the enemy unaware: Accelerated light weight munition has a lot of destructive power as the force of impact is concentrated on a small area (add in small nuclear detonator activated right before impact to rip the target to shreds, or a gram of antimatter) but the kinetic energy of the ammunition isn't that large, maybe in order of gigajoules for sub-100 kg ammunition, perhaps shaped like a needle for low radar cross section - Barely a magnitude larger than what modern cannons can pull off.
Uhu... if you're trying to claim that you can fit a nuclear detonator in the size of something a needle-tip wide, err no. Also, modern cannons absolutely cannot shoot at anything remotely like light-speed. Modern tank-guns fire at about 2000m/s tops.

At tens of thousands of kms of range, enemies would have minutes to alter their course.
Besides, any manned small fighter will not have enough shielding to protect against neutron bombardment killing the pilot inside.
Yeah, I don't disagree with that.

Uhu... if you're trying to claim that you can fit a nuclear detonator in the size of something a needle-tip wide, err no.

The impact itself could work as a compressor to initiate fusion or fission. Antimatter needle wouldn't require any casing though.

I also recall the critical mass of plutonium is something like 20 kgs - a cubic decimeter (10x10x10 cm) of that stuff?
Also, modern cannons absolutely cannot shoot at anything remotely like light-speed. Modern tank-guns fire at about 2000m/s tops.
True, but the speed is also limited by the propulsion method and atmosphere.

I also had a brainfart and meant terajoules, not gigajoules :D

Though, quick googling (http://www.google.com/search?num=50&hl=en&q=%28%281kg%2Fsqrt%28+1-0.5%29%29-1kg%29+%2A+c%5E2+in+petajoules&btnG=Search&lr=) reveals that estimate was wrong by a magnitude...well, except if you're content on shooting 10 gram ammunition at ~10% of c. ;)
At tens of thousands of kms of range, enemies would have minutes to alter their course.
Only if they could detect the ammunition in time: Stealth, speed & size.

The impact itself could work as a compressor to initiate fusion or fission. Antimatter needle wouldn't require any casing though.

I also recall the critical mass of plutonium is something like 20 kgs - a cubic decimeter (10x10x10 cm) of that stuff?
Uhu... seeing as the new Type 45 destroyer can pick up a golf ball tens of kilometers away, and destroy it with missiles or CIWS systems, I don't see why this capability would be lost by the time we got into space wars and such.
True, but the speed is also limited by the propulsion method and atmosphere.
Yep. On the other hand, electro-magnetic pish would be huge in size due to power requirements, and space doesn't really allow much for speeding up once out of the barrel, especially not with electro-magnetism.
I also had a brainfart and meant terajoules, not gigajoules :D

Though, quick googling (http://www.google.com/search?num=50&hl=en&q=%28%281kg%2Fsqrt%28+1-0.5%29%29-1kg%29+%2A+c%5E2+in+petajoules&btnG=Search&lr=) reveals that estimate was wrong by a magnitude...well, except if you're content on shooting 10 gram ammunition at ~10% of c. ;)
Quite.
Only if they could detect the ammunition in time: Stealth, speed & size.
Err yep... could probably pick it up by looking for incoming magnetic materials to be quite honest.

Uhu... seeing as the new Type 45 destroyer can pick up a golf ball tens of kilometers away, and destroy it with missiles or CIWS systems, I don't see why this capability would be lost by the time we got into space wars and such.

Well, for starters you're not trying to detect a golfball at tens of kilometers but a similar sized object trying to stay hidden from thousands of kilometers away: An infallible point defence system with, say, 0.1 second response time - detection, aiming and firing - would still need detection range that is 0.1s * speed of target. At 10 000 km/s (3% of c) it's 1 500 km...and that's not counting in the speed of the countermeasure or minimum safe distance.

Yep. On the other hand, electro-magnetic pish would be huge in size due to power requirements, and space doesn't really allow much for speeding up once out of the barrel, especially not with electro-magnetism.
Thats true and I'm actually having second thoughts about feasability of even kilogram sized relativistic ammo due to the energy required by the acceleration.

The energy needed is so vast that only easy way to fire such a weapon would be before entering the system using the speed of the interstellar vessel as the source of kinetic energy (ie. letting ammunition go 'loose' with minimal targeting push at braking phase) which while a useful method of blitzkrieging ships, satellites and platforms on stable orbits and bases on the ground probably won't debilitate entire defence grid.

edit: Unless you "sacrifice" some of your ships for a blitz...When you have ships travelling at high relative speeds they can create havoc simply by 'dropping' objects. They might even be "fighters" though unmanned in that case as there's probably no way of stopping them in time :)


Alternatives to fast, relatively heavy ammo would be slower, much more massive ammunition that's harder to destroy or lighter - bullet like - munitions.

Err yep... could probably pick it up by looking for incoming magnetic materials to be quite honest.
But at what range?

And another more important factor is whether the detection happens soon enough for effective countermeasures?

As an extreme example, consider an asteroid travelling @ 1 km/s - Detection is no problem, deflection or evasion is.

No, they have shown torpedo bays. I've never seen a phaser bank. Laser beams just come flying out of nowhere in any direction they feel like shooting them. They take up no discernible space. They are cool sure, but unfeasible.
http://images.wikia.com/memoryalpha/en/images/4/43/Constitution_class_refit_configuration_phasers.jpg
You may want to lift a finger or two and do soe research before you pound your chest and declare victory.

The tech manuals show the "inner workings" of phasers and how they are buried in the hull.

Where will they store these tons of laser cannons? I don't think particle beam weapons would easily be aimed on the fly. Lasers might be usable but they also require a good deal of room to mount.
Ever hear of the Airborne Laser project? Turns out that there are laser turrets today.
http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/laserturret00.jpg
http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/laserturret12.jpg
http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/laserturret10.jpg
http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/laserturret01.jpg
http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/laserturret02.jpg
http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/laserturret03.jpg
http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/laserturret04.jpg
http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/laserturret08.gif
Sucks to be wrong. Guess it sucks to be you.

Also, the closer the fighters can get to the ship, the less likely they are to get hit. Lasers may be able to fire at light speed, but turrets can't rotate at it.
But lasers, missiles and partical beams can pick off enemy craft at a great distance. A stand-off distance. And if the fighters do somehow survive long enough to close in they would get torn up by shotgun-type weapons spraying a cone of destruction their way. Drones have a high probability of being sacrificed so they're survival isn't a concern but people are not going to line up to get thrown in a meat grinder.

And since you like Star Trek, there are numerous battles about the Enterprise/Voyager getting a beat down because the opponent's ships are so small that they are fast and maneuverable enough to prevent the phasers from correctly targeting and hitting them.
The thing about Trek is that, with the exception of a couple of movies and episodes, the ships fighting are way too close to each other. In a real space battle you'll shooting at your opponent with a finely calibrated computer-controlled weapon because they'll be thousands of kilometers away.

Yeah that applies to like point-blank range. Again with the starfighter slinking past the slow weapons in time to save the day... ugh! Combat won't be at that range.
Not just point black, there is a certain threshold ofcourse depending on the turret at wich the turret can't turn fast enough to keep track of the fighter, that's the optimal range of a fighter and that's the range where fighter combat dóes happen. Afterall, that's where they would excell.

I don't watch that show. Anyway, there's nothing hard about making small turrets either.
Go watch a random episode or something :p Battlestar has the bést and most realistic space-combat in any SF series, because the ships and fighters actually behave in space like they should do: using thrusters to maneuvre. And yea, you can make small turrets, but they still have limited degrees of freedom compared to a fighter and pack a smaller punch.

Also, the reason why capital ships are outmaneuvred by fighters, is this: capital ships have multiple functions, and carry a lot of weapons. The capital ship has to be a stable weapons platform for targeting.
But lasers, missiles and partical beams can pick off enemy craft at a great distance. A stand-off distance. And if the fighters do somehow survive long enough to close in they would get torn up by shotgun-type weapons spraying a cone of destruction their way. Drones have a high probability of being sacrificed so they're survival isn't a concern but people are not going to line up to get thrown in a meat grinder.
That's why ships who launch fighters will come closer then that huge range to launch there fighters. And turrets like that also exist today, yet I still see lots and lots of fighters flying around, and on Earth they're even less maneuverable then in space.
Ever hear of the Airborne Laser project? Turns out that there are laser turrets today.
http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/laserturret00.jpg
http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/laserturret12.jpg
http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/laserturret10.jpg
http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/laserturret01.jpg
http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/laserturret02.jpg
http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/laserturret03.jpg
http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/laserturret04.jpg
http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/laserturret08.gif
Sucks to be wrong. Guess it sucks to be you.
Forbidden
You don't have permission to access /rocket/laserturret08.gif on this server.


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

Apache/1.3.37 Server at www.projectrho.com Port 80
And that applies to all of them, but yea, laser turrets exist, but not against fighters. These turrets are against artillery shells and missles, targets with a much more predictable path. Here's a youtube movie about that laser turret, the MTHEL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcmI6UnR4gg That thing is severe kick-ass :D

If we're talking about a universe where shields are make-believe and slow projectile weapons are still the norm, fighters and bombers are useful. This is why my FT nation has them - they can get in close to capital ships, dodging weapons fire and hitting critical targets on an unshielded hull without exposing their mothership to a highly risky engagement. This is why Battlestar Galactica is so good, too - they actually use fighters and bombers properly.

But in a universe with shields on every capital ship and lightspeed energy weapons, they are useless aside from keeping other useless fighters busy. The shields on a capital ship are usually several orders of magnitude stronger than any weapon you can possibly mount on a fighter, missiles included, and their own weapons can swat fighters out of the sky (or space) with more efficiency than any CIWS. Typically, their engines allow for greater speed too, making fighters even more useless - they won't even be able to keep up!

You keep citing space operas and comparing the situation to World War II as evidence for your point, but this isn't the way to go about it. Fighters are placed into space operas and science fantasies like Star Wars because they're cool and exciting, that's about it. And please, don't use the Death Star as an example for anything, as that - both its very existence and its ultimate destruction - was utterly ridiculous in every way it's possible to be ridiculous. As for World War II, to my knowledge capital ships didn't have lightspeed energy weapons, nor did they have powerful energy shielding to shrug off fighter attacks. You're comparing apples and oranges.

Now, if you're going to insist on having fighters regardless of their usefulness (presumably for the same reason space operas have them), the best space fighter you could ever develop would be some kind of small, robotic sphere. Preferably loaded with explosives and used purely for ramming into enemy ships. Otherwise, even missiles would be more productive than fighters - they're cheaper, faster, harder-to-hit...

And that applies to all of them, but yea, laser turrets exist, but not against fighters. These turrets are against artillery shells and missles, targets with a much more predictable path.

It's a question of distance, horizon, atmosphere, blooming & energy required, not predictability.

A fighter that's 100 kilometers away when zapped with a laser cannon can move around 20 centimeters before impact (http://www.google.com/search?num=50&hl=en&rls=en&hs=96x&q=100+km%2Fc+%2A+mach+2&btnG=Search&lr=) and has absolutely no time to react to the 'launch'.

Ever hear of the Airborne Laser project? Turns out that there are laser turrets today.
I know far more about it than you by default.
And are you not differentiating between particle beam weapons and lasers? Also, since you know so much about them, you would know it takes a 747 to mount the housings required for it. Those would take up alot of room on the ship to mount. Which I said.


But lasers, missiles and partical beams can pick off enemy craft at a great distance.
Missiles are not infallible.

And if the fighters do somehow survive long enough to close in they would get torn up by shotgun-type weapons spraying a cone of destruction their way.
Lulwhat? Now you're just making shit up. How do you propose a shotgun-type spray is used? How are they going to make it spread out? And those would be more absurd to use at close range than lasers. A mounting turret for a gun would have less coverage than a laser. Regardless, once they get close enough, it gets harder to hit him as the mount has to rotate much faster to aim to hit them.

The thing about Trek is that, with the exception of a couple of movies and episodes, the ships fighting are way too close to each other. In a real space battle you'll shooting at your opponent with a finely calibrated computer-controlled weapon because they'll be thousands of kilometers away.
Based on your obviously experienced opinion. And let's not even go into the fact Star Trek ships are regularly out maneuvered by smaller vessels.

QFT, capital ships are much more expensive, especially when you consider what a determined opponent using fighters can do against them (kamikazes would have been more effective if the pilots were actually given flight training, but that's just one example). As for space and the g-forces and everything, trying to have an argument over the different worlds that these fighters inhabit is a fool's errand. Oh, and it's incom x-wings, not infocom, noob.

Now see I was all set to thank you for the correction but... noob? Unless you're old enough to have been in the theater to see Star Wars when it first came out, you don't get to call me a noob over a typo.

poser. :p

I know far more about it than you by default.
And are you not differentiating between particle beam weapons and lasers? Also, since you know so much about them, you would know it takes a 747 to mount the housings required for it. Those would take up alot of room on the ship to mount. Which I said.

Okay, first of all, why do you assume that ships will be aircraft sized? For example, seeing as we're citing fiction, in EVE Online, the smallest ship, a frigate, is bigger then the Eiffel tower, and the largest ships, according to fiction, can affect planetary tides.

In other words: there is no reason why a ship can't be mindbogglingly huge.



Missiles are not infallible.

But they tend to be less infallible then fighters flown by living things. Remember that most missiles are basically robotically controlled fighters, with a suicide pact with their target


Lulwhat? Now you're just making shit up. How do you propose a shotgun-type spray is used? How are they going to make it spread out? And those would be more absurd to use at close range than lasers. A mounting turret for a gun would have less coverage than a laser. Regardless, once they get close enough, it gets harder to hit him as the mount has to rotate much faster to aim to hit them.
The same way you make shot spread out on Earth perhaps? Setting off a small explosion behind a loosely held together group of small pieces of metal?

You know, you keep saying that turrets have to rotate faster in order to hit, but a laser 'turret' probably wouldn't need to 'turn' at all, especially if it was using some sort of spinning liquid mirror to aim. Further more, it should be nearly impossible to miss with a laser; it's not a matter of dodging out of the way when you're in a fighter, because from the POV of the Laser beam, nothing is really moving, in the same way that humans can't tell that a tree is growing.

But that's beside the point, it'd be easy just to tractor the damn fighter and pop it with your big ass turrets if they really can't track them at close range.

Based on your obviously experienced opinion. And let's not even go into the fact Star Trek ships are regularly out maneuvered by smaller vessels.

Yes, but star trek, like EVE Online, is a fictional media designed to produce entertainment, not to give an accurate picture of what space combat would look like.

Further more, in Wolf 359, a single Borg Cube was able to 'lay the pwnage' down on the Federation ships, even though they were at close range and outmaneuvering it. In fact, of the 40 ships sent to stop it, 39 got destroyed, and 1 barely escaped. The single Borg ship, on the other hand, lost no ships.

Okay, first of all, why do you assume that ships will be aircraft sized? For example, seeing as we're citing fiction, in EVE Online, the smallest ship, a frigate, is bigger then the Eiffel tower, and the largest ships, according to fiction, can affect planetary tides.
And each laser turret takes up the space of a 747.

But they tend to be less infallible then fighters flown by living things.
Stuff that jams missiles disagrees.

You know, you keep saying that turrets have to rotate faster in order to hit, but a laser 'turret' probably wouldn't need to 'turn' at all, especially if it was using some sort of spinning liquid mirror to aim.
It has to be aimed somehow. How do you propose it is aimed used a static spinning liquid mirror. If nothing is done, how would you know where the laser is going to go, or how to make it change directions?

Further more, it should be nearly impossible to miss with a laser; it's not a matter of dodging out of the way when you're in a fighter, because from the POV of the Laser beam, nothing is really moving, in the same way that humans can't tell that a tree is growing.
Lasers are used to overheat stuff until they explode. The laser would have to lock onto something combustible and stay on it until it manages to overheat and cut through to the explosive stuff and explode that. Cover everything in ceramics or other heat dispersing material and lasers are either neutered or easily counterable.

But that's beside the point, it'd be easy just to tractor the damn fighter and pop it with your big ass turrets if they really can't track them at close range.
I guess it will be tractored using a giant magnet stuck to the hull of the capital ship :rolleyes:

Yes, but star trek, like EVE Online, is a fictional media designed to produce entertainment, not to give an accurate picture of what space combat would look like.
Then what do you propose makes you people more correct than those who contrive the myriad of sci-fi universes?

Further more, in Wolf 359, a single Borg Cube was able to 'lay the pwnage' down on the Federation ships, even though they were at close range and outmaneuvering it. In fact, of the 40 ships sent to stop it, 39 got destroyed, and 1 barely escaped. The single Borg ship, on the other hand, lost no ships.
Borg ships are made of more non-sense than anything else in the Star Trek universe. Their weapons have infinite coverage and seem to be mounted nowhere in particular. Also, they regenerate and remodulate shielding automatically to compensate for weapons fire.

People keep saying that at a greater distance, Capital ships have an advantage over fighters that can't be overcome. As if these capital ships could simply pick off an enemy simply by blinking. Here's the thing. And this is using nothing from any sci-fi world, so don't debate me with that stuff. This is using simple, feasable logic.

If we're talking about projectile weapons, then fighters are practical and useful. This is agreed by almost everyone.

If we're speaking of lazer weapons, then fighters become suddenly obsolete. This is a subject of debate.

Lazers don't function on an instanst destroy. It requires a sever amount of time to cause any sort of harm, and requires that the beam be concentrated over a long distance. Making it impractical for ranged fire. Because, contrary to popular belief, a lazer beam loses validity at the range you all seem to think the battle would be fought at. The further it travels, the less concentrated it becomes, the less concentrated, the less power it has. This can be compensated by creating heavier lazers, but once again this would require more power and space then would be practical.

If we're speaking on particle beam weapons then fighters become utterly useless and in fact burdensome. Once again, a subject of debate.

With such weapons you run into the same problem as lazers, over extended distances they loose their oomph. Add that to the fact that they reuire vast amounts of energy to be effective, and their recharge time before they can function between shots is practically a "sitting duck" weapon.

Now to be fair. What I know of particle weapons is they work on charging a particle to the point of instability and then are sent out to explode when resistance is encountered. So I could be wrong. But that sounds alot more logical then some of the spacestuff I've heard.

Capital ships shield are far more powerful then what a fighter could penetrate. Debatable.

Even if a capital ship was only fighting a squadron of fighters. They could wear it down. Add that to the fact that unless you believe in some serious make believe world, anything made to keep things from getting in, generally works to keep things from getting out to. So sure they could turn on their shields, but they wouldn't be able to shoot down a fighter until they lowered them, and the moment they did they would have several fighters assailing them all at once with ammunitions.

Add that to the fact that for a capital ship to be practical it would require multiple generators for it's many systems. Each of these would need to be insanely large in order to supply the power needed for the functions, meaning you would have less space to put weapons.

Taking into consideration, that even given that if the final reflective service was a single band of liquid mirror on a lazer turret, it's innerworkings would have to be several different mirrors that could be used, constant in one position that would limit the position of fire greatly. Or a small set of mirrors that would be angled and position to labor the shot. Either or, something, would still have to calculate the best angle of fire, and then the angle would be faulty because it would only be a best approximation. Or the mirrors would have to be positioned, giving you accuracy, but increasing the time of fire. Add in that you would have multiple fighters, meaning that you may be able to hit one enemy. But in the time it takes you to do so, his buddies will have swarmed you and kicked you in the nuts.

There have always been instances in where a weaker enemy has taken out a better enemy with better shields and better weapons. The game doesn't change with the advent of lightspeed weapons, no matter how much you want to believe it does.

Add that to the fact that the fighters would be moving in erratic and sporadic movements on approach instead of simply you know, coming forward. The fact that your enemy probably has a big frikkin ship at the head of his force. And those fighters suddenly become alot more useful then you seem to recognize.

You take your capital ship. I'll take my flagship and my army of fighters... we'll seee which one of us wins.

It's a question of distance, horizon, atmosphere, blooming & energy required, not predictability.

A fighter that's 100 kilometers away when zapped with a laser cannon can move around 20 centimeters before impact (http://www.google.com/search?num=50&hl=en&rls=en&hs=96x&q=100+km%2Fc+%2A+mach+2&btnG=Search&lr=) and has absolutely no time to react to the 'launch'.
It's not about the lasergun itself, it's about the targeting mechanism. First the turret has to get a lock, then has to target paint it with an infra-red beam, then fires the laser beam and thén it has to stay on the target long enough to cut through the fighter (it isn't instant dead). The weapon itself may be light speed, but the turret's turning-mechanism is not lightspeed and has múch less degrees of freedom then fighters have.

Even if a capital ship was only fighting a squadron of fighters. They could wear it down.
Agreed, maybe this real life situation would make a proper example Lions vs Elephant: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOE4RzS7JPY (The action starts at about 3:18 or something).
Then what do you propose makes you people more correct than those who contrive the myriad of sci-fi universes?

Look at how vehicles maneuvre in real life space, look at how real life turrets and weapons target and fire. And ofcourse, watch Battlestar Galactica :D

Agreed, maybe this real life situation would make a proper example Lions vs Elephant: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOE4RzS7JPY (The action starts at about 3:18 or something).




BUT THE ELEPHANT DOESN'T HAVE LIGHTSPEED WEAPONS!!!!1111111111111111 D:<

It's not about the lasergun itself, it's about the targeting mechanism. First the turret has to get a lock, then has to target paint it with an infra-red beam, then fires the laser beam and thén it has to stay on the target long enough to cut through the fighter (it isn't instant dead).

What's with the infrared beam? Targeting a weapon that is for all intents and purposes instant needs a lot less time than trajectorizing an AA gun or similar slow method of killing a fighter. And for that latter point, just aim at the wing and let the aircraft blow itself apart when the fuel ignites...which is why anti-missile PD lasers are more viable: Much shorter distance & process akin to self-destruction.

That in theory, in practice in atmospheric conditions air adds an obstacle, through diffraction and blooming, that makes building enough powerful laser very difficult.

The weapon itself may be light speed, but the turret's turning-mechanism is not lightspeed and has múch less degrees of freedom then fighters have.

The point of a turret is that it doesn't need those degrees of freedom - A ship turret, for example, doesn't need firing arcs of 360 by 360 degrees. Furthermore, when you have dedicated turrets facing certain directions you instantly cut down targeting times.

Besides a missile, "dumb" fire ammo or unmanned drone can have much better mobility than any manned fighter as they aren't G-force restricted.

Based on your obviously experienced opinion. And let's not even go into the fact Star Trek ships are regularly out maneuvered by smaller vessels.

Saying Star Trek gets space combat wrong from a perspective of realism isn't an 'experienced opinion,' it's just a statement of fact. Of COURSE they get it wrong. It's Star Trek dude.

So saying that ST ships are outmaneuvered by smaller vessels doesn't really say much except that getting outmaneuvered by smaller vessels is interesting and seems like it would make sense, even if it doesn't. Same with point-blank space combat. These are standard scifi memes - the Top Gun like fighter pilots, the little but fast good guys and the big and slow bad guys. Shit, it's David and Goliath. David and Goliath is interesting because David wins. So that's what happens in the Bible. It has nothing to do with whether David actually won, or whether he would have won in that situation. Same with Star Trek and Star Wars. What happens, happens only because a bunch of non-scientific screenwriters decided it would be interesting.

What's with the infrared beam? Targeting a weapon that is for all intents and purposes instant needs a lot less time than trajectorizing an AA gun or similar slow method of killing a fighter. And for that latter point, just aim at the wing and let the aircraft blow itself apart when the fuel ignites...which is why anti-missile PD lasers are more viable: Much shorter distance & process akin to self-destruction.
Don't ask me about the target beam, apperantly they're doing it with that, the blooming and defraction sounds indeed like the most likely option. But ofcourse, when there are laser weapons, fighters and other military air and spacecraft will adopt anti-laser armor, or won't store there fuel in such vurnerable area's. Besides, since when do spacefighters require wings ;)


The point of a turret is that it doesn't need those degrees of freedom - A ship turret, for example, doesn't need firing arcs of 360 by 360 degrees. When you have dedicated turrets facing certain directions you instantly cut down targeting times.
True, but every turret has to start all over again with targeting and firing, ofcourse there would be ways to counter it (lick the targeting mechanisms, so other turrets can anticipate, but that's very hard with multiple targets, fighters don't attack alone.

Besides a missile, "dumb" fire ammo or unmanned drone can have much better mobility than any manned fighter as they aren't G-force restricted.
There is still a big difference between robots and humans, humans are still much more usefull then AI. Maybe that will change, maybe we will start using remote controll fighters. And ofcourse we use technology to counter those G-force problems. Or else we would have loooots of problems already with our jets.
Saying Star Trek gets space combat wrong from a perspective of realism isn't an 'experienced opinion,' it's just a statement of fact. Of COURSE they get it wrong. It's Star Trek dude.

So saying that ST ships are outmaneuvered by smaller vessels doesn't really say much except that getting outmaneuvered by smaller vessels is interesting and seems like it would make sense, even if it doesn't. Same with point-blank space combat. These are standard scifi memes - the Top Gun like fighter pilots, the little but fast good guys and the big and slow bad guys. Shit, it's David and Goliath. David and Goliath is interesting because David wins. So that's what happens in the Bible. It has nothing to do with whether David actually won, or whether he would have won in that situation. Same with Star Trek and Star Wars. What happens, happens only because a bunch of non-scientific screenwriters decided it would be interesting.
It happens in real life as well, think aircraft carriers vs battleships.

It happens in real life as well, think aircraft carriers vs battleships.

I already addressed how that doesn't compare. Space fighters don't have any advantage that aircraft do over 'ships.' They can't 'fly' compared to the ships 'float.' Everything moves the same way, in space.

I already addressed how that doesn't compare. Space fighters don't have any advantage that aircraft do over 'ships.' They can't 'fly' compared to the ships 'float.' Everything moves the same way, in space.
A big capital ship still is required to be a stable weapons platform. Think of all the targeting mechanisms, launch bays (for shuttles, rockets and whatever), and ofcourse the sheer size of the ship. And then think of a small fighter, those are still much much more maneuverable compared to big capital ships. Again, Battlestar Galactica shows that really really good.

I already addressed how that doesn't compare. Space fighters don't have any advantage that aircraft do over 'ships.' They can't 'fly' compared to the ships 'float.' Everything moves the same way, in space.

Not true. With the size of a spaceship compared to the size of a fighter. They're pretty much in the same situation as a battleship vs a fighter jet. They're slow, bulky, and don't have alot of maneuverability. The only thing that changes is the dimensions in which the battle is fought, which doesn't change the nature of the conflict.

Somehow people think that the bigger ship would be able to just fire and obliterate anything smaller in its path. This is faulty logic.

Fighters don't just sit STILL. They don't just come at you in a straight line. And do you know why? Because that would be stupid. They make fast turns, shifting and weaving, their craft. Even when not being fired on. To make it harder to lock on to the craft.

The reason why most weapons systems are MANNED on sci-fi shows is simple. Computers can't anticipate. No matter what you believe, they cannot. Computers can't think on their feet. This puts a computated system at a disadvantage against any manned system. Where a person might say.. I think he's going to go left, and angle the gun to fire left In preparation of where he might be. A computer couldn't use that kind of foresight. An AI would be able to. But only if it was a highly advanced AI. Nothing we have now could, and nothing most of the sci-fi shows have can. Barring Andromeda.

The point is. A man against a computer, the computer is likely going to lose. Because men can understand how computers think. Computers can't understand how men think.

And what? Who thinks that you can actually shoot a ship without aiming at it first?

Edit: This is untrue. I forget. There have been some AIs that have been trained to "think ahead" but it has been proven that this only works 3 out of 10 times. A human can come up with something unpredictable. They don't operate on a steady course, so it is relatively easy to feign a computer.

Edit again: 3 out 10 is also a rough estimation. i don't have the actuall figures. It works with varying degrees of success depending on the data the system has. And the mind of it's target.

Not true. With the size of a spaceship compared to the size of a fighter. They're pretty much in the same situation as a battleship vs a fighter jet. They're slow, bulky, and don't have alot of maneuverability.

Untrue. If you can make an engine that propells a small craft at high acceleration, you can make a bigger engine that propels a bigger craft at high acceleration. There is absolutely no reason why smaller ships are somehow faster. It's true they are less bulky.

The reason why most weapons systems are MANNED on sci-fi shows is simple. Computers can't anticipate.

Yeah we have automated weapon systems here in 2008, but for some reason we won't in a few hundred years.

No matter what you believe, they cannot. Computers can't think on their feet. This puts a computated system at a disadvantage against any manned system. Where a person might say.. I think he's going to go left, and angle the gun to fire left In preparation of where he might be. A computer couldn't use that kind of foresight. An AI would be able to. But only if it was a highly advanced AI. Nothing we have now could

Tell that to Garry Kasparov.


The point is. A man against a computer, the computer is likely going to lose. Because men can understand how computers think. Computers can't understand how men think.

They don't have to understand how men think. Computers are *born* for calculating possible trajectories, velocities, displacement. Honestly, you're just trying to justify the "Use the force, Luke!" nonsense that passes for science fiction. Oh the small, fast, airplane-like fighter pilot. Now he takes off the targeting computer. He shoots. He scores! It's ridiculous, people, and not an accurate depiction of anything except George Lucas' fantasyland.

I know far more about it than you by default.
Because you worked on it? Unless you're one of the engineers who worked on it I doubt that.

And are you not differentiating between particle beam weapons and lasers?
No, particle beam weapons are scaled up CRTs. They fire charged particles at at target. Not quite as fast as a laser but still faster than a bullet. They also have the added benefit of irradiating a crewed ship. Perhaps you've heard of Bremsstrahlung. A dental x-ray is basically an electron beam striking a metal target. Use that on an enemy ship and you'll get an x-ray of everyone inside dying horribly of radiation poisoning.

Also, since you know so much about them, you would know it takes a 747 to mount the housings required for it. Those would take up alot of room on the ship to mount. Which I said.
That laser turret takes up a 747 nose to mount, it doesn't require the entire plane and it eliminates the need for moving a whole ship to aim a laser cannon. That means that fighters can be picked off at a distance with ease unless they have something that can repel photons or at least protect them long enough to get in range to fire their weapons.

Missiles are not infallible.
Neither are humans. You try dodging 6 inbound missiles that can handle more than twice the g-force you can. I'm not saying that you can't have fighters, I'm just saying that manned fighters don't make any sense. When a drone gets shot down you just launch another drone, no big deal.

Lulwhat? Now you're just making shit up. How do you propose a shotgun-type spray is used? How are they going to make it spread out? And those would be more absurd to use at close range than lasers.
We have machineguns right now. We have shotguns right now. Why wouldn't a scaled up version of an automatic shotgun be possible right now? It would only be used for close up anti-fighter and anti-missile work but by spreading the shot you increase a chance for a hit. And since whatever you're shooting at is already coming at you at a high speed, probably several km/s, it would probably get torn up by just about anything, even a tin can dumped in its path.

A mounting turret for a gun would have less coverage than a laser. Regardless, once they get close enough, it gets harder to hit him as the mount has to rotate much faster to aim to hit them.
Which is why you use some kind of shotgun or AA gun. Or you could fire a missile coated with shrapnel to blow up in the path of a fighter and deliver a cloud of kinetic kill masses directly into its path. That would kill it at a distance.

Considering how easy it would be to kill a fighter it would make no sense to have them be manned. When the fighter isn't manned it becomes a drone. There is nothing wrong with a drone, they just aren't as cool as manned fighters.

Based on your obviously experienced opinion. And let's not even go into the fact Star Trek ships are regularly out maneuvered by smaller vessels.
No, it's based on the fact that there is no such thing as stealth in space and ships can be detected at a great distance. If you can detect and track a ship from very far away by just the heat required to keep it habitable then it will be easy for you to point a laser at it and wait until it's only a couple of light-seconds away or fire off some missiles to intercept it. Tiny dots shooting at each other with invisible (you can't see a laser beam in a vacuum) lasers and missiles wouldn't be very entertaining so they bring the ships in really close for TV.

Untrue. If you can make an engine that propells a small craft at high acceleration, you can make a bigger engine that propels a bigger craft at high acceleration. There is absolutely no reason why smaller ships are somehow faster. It's true they are less bulky.


It depends on what you mean by speed. If you're asking if a larger ship could outpace a smaller ship. Yes. In a race, the larger ship could and probably would win. However, in a fight, speed takes on a new field all together. If you watch any sci-fi show. WHen they do a space battle. There is a reason that the spaceship pretty much stands still. It's not because it looks cooler. It doesn't. It looks boring. It's because the ship really can't move. They're great for going in a straight line. But when it comes to actuall speed. The ability to ascend, descend, turn, fighters kick their ass every which way. It's not all about thrust and acceleration.

In a battle betweeen a semitruck and a motorcyle, give me the cycle. Because by the time that truck got around to doing any damage to me. I'd have already blown it to hell.


Yeah we have automated weapon systems here in 2008, but for some reason we won't in a few hundred years.


Stand alone automated systems with no technicians or manned armaments nearby?


Tell that to Garry Kasparov.


Where's his number? Is he listed?



They don't have to understand how men think. Computers are *born* for calculating possible trajectories, velocities, displacement. Honestly, you're just trying to justify the "Use the force, Luke!" nonsense that passes for science fiction. Oh the small, fast, airplane-like fighter pilot. Now he takes off the targeting computer. He shoots. He scores! It's ridiculous, people, and not an accurate depiction of anything except George Lucas' fantasyland.

I hate Star Wars. What I am using is simple logic.

Take for instance the most basic AI program that was designed for combat. The old Chess computer. This is a computer mind that was programmed with all this knowledge about every strategy known in the computer world, of all the strategies and counters of the chess world and it still takes it several minutes to analyze, decipher and counter the move.

Translate that to a highspeed, highcombat situation.

Show me this automated weapons system. Then look at it's combat record. Show me that it has mannaged to shoot down any assailent that flys it way without taking damage. Without them being able to avoid it's fire. That every time it fires it gets a hit. Then I will rest my argument and concede. Until then. My point remains logical and valid. Computer minds are limited and are severly lacking.

It depends on what you mean by speed. If you're asking if a larger ship could outpace a smaller ship. Yes. In a race, the larger ship could and probably would win.

That alone makes fighter's so-called advantages useless. They can't even GET close because the larger ship outperforms them. Not to mention outgunning it.

However, in a fight, speed takes on a new field all together. If you watch any sci-fi show. WHen they do a space battle. There is a reason that the spaceship pretty much stands still. It's not because it looks cooler. It doesn't. It looks boring. It's because the ship really can't move. They're great for going in a straight line. But when it comes to actuall speed. The ability to ascend, descend, turn, fighters kick their ass every which way. It's not all about thrust and acceleration.

Sci-fi shows are notoriously inaccurate.

In a battle betweeen a semitruck and a motorcyle, give me the cycle. Because by the time that truck got around to doing any damage to me. I'd have already blown it to hell.

...

This analogy is even more fail than the aircraft/naval ship one.

Stand alone automated systems with no technicians or manned armaments nearby?

Why yes, these are what make up the majority of systems on any combat aircraft for example, and would presumably be relied upon for your space 'fighters' as well since they only have 1 man crew.

Where's his number? Is he listed?

I was hoping you had it. :(

I hate Star Wars. What I am using is simple logic.

Take for instance the most basic AI program that was designed for combat. The old Chess computer. This is a computer mind that was programmed with all this knowledge about every strategy known in the computer world, of all the strategies and counters of the chess world and it still takes it several minutes to analyze, decipher and counter the move.

Human players also need several minutes to analyze moves. And the reason I mentioned Garry Kasparov is because if a modern computer can defeat a world chess champion, it's a good bet that a computer 500 years from now will be able to frankly beat the stuffing out of any human. At chess, anyway.

In space, when it comes to targeting, you need computers. You can't do that shit in your head, or even just punching buttons on some calculator. This isn't some WWII bullshit where you simply move the gun and aim it at something a few hundred meters away. Distances are vast, and computers are a necessity just to deal with it. To say that for some mystical reason (the Force, I guess, or human pride/ego) humans can do better is just not examining the situation as it actually is.



Translate that to a highspeed, highcombat situation.

Show me this automated weapons system. Then look at it's combat record. Show me that it has mannaged to shoot down any assailent that flys it way without taking damage. Without them being able to avoid it's fire. That every time it fires it gets a hit. Then I will rest my argument and concede. Until then. My point remains logical and valid. Computer minds are limited and are severly lacking.

Show me a human weapon system that's shot down any assailant, without taking damage, without the target being able to avoid the fire, that always hits.

Oh wait you can't. And you asking me to do that with a computer system is a strawman argument.

Why don't you just figure out the probability of hitting a target 5,000 km away with an acceleration capability of 34 m/s/s and a mean surface area (relative to weapon sensors) of 8 square meters. Taking into account your own acceleration and velocity and the time it takes for light to travel the distance. This is a high speed combat situation, tick tock, tick tock.

A computer could do that faster than it took for you to read it, let alone to do it. And it could move the weapon and fire it as well.

A human would be nice to have around of course, for a few reasons, but not because the computer isn't as good at targeting.

Saying Star Trek gets space combat wrong from a perspective of realism isn't an 'experienced opinion,' it's just a statement of fact. Of COURSE they get it wrong. It's Star Trek dude.
But you have been using Star Trek as the poser child of why fighter class vessels wouldn't work.

Because you worked on it? Unless you're one of the engineers who worked on it I doubt that. [...]
That laser turret takes up a 747 nose to mount, it doesn't require the entire plane and it eliminates the need for moving a whole ship to aim a laser cannon.
I havn't worked on it directly, but I know for a fact more than that fancy nose piece is the laser. The thing that creates the laser takes the entirety of the 747 to house.


Neither are humans. You try dodging 6 inbound missiles that can handle more than twice the g-force you can.
Missiles use a very simplistic AI that can be tricked.

But you have been using Star Trek as the poser child of why fighter class vessels wouldn't work.

No I haven't, not at all.

Uhu, in which case you're going to be packing incredibly vast amounts of propellant, the backblast from which is going to be enormous, and the possibility of its destruction and the complete obliteration of a ship is going to be pretty high.
Forget about propellant in the conventional sense. Think electric rail gun.
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2007/November/ElectricGuns.htm
Or directed energy weapons.

... will adopt anti-laser armor, or won't store there fuel in such vurnerable area's. Besides, since when do spacefighters require wings

The thing is that to destroy a space fighter you don't need laser beams, be they normal light or of wave length that is hard or impossible to reflect.

You only need trash to destroy an incoming fighter because the velocity difference between the target and the fighter means that any impact the fighter has even with near "stationary" junk will be lethal to it and its crew.

There is still a big difference between robots and humans, humans are still much more usefull then AI. Maybe that will change, maybe we will start using remote controll fighters.
In space, remote control is *slow*...moving at light speed an' all that.

Integrated wetware (aka the pilot) is bit faster but what you need is completely mechanized drone in order to achieve anything remotely like necessary mobility or speed to evade counter measures.
And ofcourse we use technology to counter those G-force problems. Or else we would have loooots of problems already with our jets.
Subject a human to 500 Gs and he or she will turn into red goo.

Subject a properly built mechanical device into those loads and you still have functional piece of hardware.

edit:
One question though for the pro-fighter crowd:
Exactly what weapon could the fighter carry that the target couldn't use to destroy the fighter well in advance or couldn't be used out of a distance?

And each laser turret takes up the space of a 747.
And how many 747s can you fit onto the surface of the moon? Probably a lot.

Stuff that jams missiles disagrees.
What's your point? If you blinded a human in the cockpit of your fighter, he'd be unable to fly the ship ether, and if you blinded the ship's sensors, he'd be just as helpless as a jammed missile.

It has to be aimed somehow. How do you propose it is aimed used a static spinning liquid mirror. If nothing is done, how would you know where the laser is going to go, or how to make it change directions?

By altering the mirror ever so slightly, slowing the rotation speed down, etc.

Over the vast distances in space, the amount of movement required by the system would be very small.

At closer ranges, slight distortions in the mirror's surface could be used to rapidly move the beam around.


Lasers are used to overheat stuff until they explode. The laser would have to lock onto something combustible and stay on it until it manages to overheat and cut through to the explosive stuff and explode that. Cover everything in ceramics or other heat dispersing material and lasers are either neutered or easily counterable.
Yes, but it could also use a wavelength of light, such as Gamma rays, or Xrays or such, to produce the same effect, from a distance, without giving away the fact that they're targeting a fighter. The fighter may not know anything is going on until they explode.

While I agree that you could coat the fighters in materials to deflect the energy from the Lasers, if should be noted that so could the capital ships, but in greater amounts.


I guess it will be tractored using a giant magnet stuck to the hull of the capital ship :rolleyes:

You keep bringing up Star Trek, Star Trek has Tractor Beams.

Inventing a tractor beam, or a shotgun-like array is FAR more likely then building a fighter that can cross the distance between the earth and the Moon in an acceptable amount of time, not get shotdown as they fly towards their goal, and carries enough fuel, armor, and ammo to do anything to the capital ship when they get to it.


Then what do you propose makes you people more correct than those who contrive the myriad of sci-fi universes?
Because Real life battles are not nearly as interesting or as fun to watch as fictional scripted ones?

Borg ships are made of more non-sense than anything else in the Star Trek universe. Their weapons have infinite coverage and seem to be mounted nowhere in particular. Also, they regenerate and remodulate shielding automatically to compensate for weapons fire.
Well the basic idea behind the Borg is that they're suppose to be decenterized, having no central bridge and such. I'm not sure what your point is about remodulating shields automatically, hell, even Voyager should do that, if it wasn't for the fact that what they do in Star Trek, as in all Science fiction, is for the PLOT.

T

edit:
One question though for the pro-fighter crowd:
Exactly what weapon could the fighter carry that the target couldn't use to destroy the fighter well in advance or couldn't be used out of a distance?

Or, indeed, be able to do any damage to the captial ship when it gets there.

You know, during the years leading up the WWII, some guy argued that the air force could be used to completely obsolete Navy ships. He tried to prove is point by having a squad of bombs take shots at an old battleship.

And nothing happened. The bombers weren't able to destroy the ship, at least until he told the pilots to keep going until it did sink, but remember that this is a ship with no damage control, not making an attempt to shoot theses ships down, etc.

Yes, but it could also use a wavelength of light, such as Gamma rays, or Xrays or such, to produce the same effect, from a distance, without giving away the fact that they're targeting a fighter. The fighter may not know anything is going on until they explode.

FYI normal wavelength laser is also completely invisible and undetectable until it hits you in space.

It only comes visible after it has evaporated enough material from your ship to form a 'dust cloud' that defracts the beam enough to be detectable outside of the path of the beam.

Or, indeed, be able to do any damage to the captial ship when it gets there.

That's easy - The fighter itself: It's basically a kinetic ammo....

Well, that and the easy option of nuclear warhead missiles and what not ;)

FYI normal wavelength laser is also completely invisible and undetectable until it hits you in space.

It only comes visible after it has evaporated enough material from your ship to form a 'dust cloud' that defracts the beam enough to be detectable outside of the path of the beam.
True enough, but I assume that they'd notice a big red dot on their fighter.



That's easy - The fighter itself: It's basically a kinetic ammo....

Well, that and the easy option of nuclear warhead missiles and what not ;)

I'm not sure how effective a nuclear warhead would really be, when you factor in the size of the warheads, (and you'd need them small enough so you can shoot more then one per bombing run) and how thick the armor could be.

True enough, but I assume that they'd notice a big red dot on their fighter.
Not that easy I s'pose, considering the big red dot could be otherwise invisible millimeter wide hole appearing in the hull.

...apart from covering the outer skin of the fighter with thermal sensors... :)
I'm not sure how effective a nuclear warhead would really be, when you factor in the size of the warheads, (and you'd need them small enough so you can shoot more then one per bombing run) and how thick the armor could be.
Well, I'm tempted to say completely inefficient as the target could just shoot down any nuclear warhead coming near them, same way as shooting down the fighters - Unless it's moving fast enough or is undetectable until it reaches the effective range.

OTOH the fighter - a fleet of fighters - could get decimated by a single relatively small neutron bomb detonation.

That alone makes fighter's so-called advantages useless. They can't even GET close because the larger ship outperforms them. Not to mention outgunning it.


Only if the two are moving in a straightline. The larger ship cannot maneuver. In a fight, it pretty much becomes a sitting duck.


Sci-fi shows are notoriously inaccurate.


Some are. But many use at least some modicum of sense. Pointing to above. They're highly accurate enough to know that a ship at the size of a battleship wouldn't be able to maneuver with any kind of realistic proponent.


...

This analogy is even more fail than the aircraft/naval ship one.


The aircraft vs naval ship isn't flawed. You claim it is because the naval ship can't fly. But once again. The only thing that changes is the dimension of the fight. With the motorcycle analogy I take away the weapons. Both objects are on the same battlefield have the same level of movement. And the scale is equally reflective. Though I should perhaps alter the battle to man with a grenadelauncher on a motorcycle vs a tank. The tank might win. But so mightn't the cyclist. And I know your going to argue it's not the same thing. But it really is.


Why yes, these are what make up the majority of systems on any combat aircraft for example, and would presumably be relied upon for your space 'fighters' as well since they only have 1 man crew.


Combat aircrafts are manned. You realize this of course?




Human players also need several minutes to analyze moves. And the reason I mentioned Garry Kasparov is because if a modern computer can defeat a world chess champion, it's a good bet that a computer 500 years from now will be able to frankly beat the stuffing out of any human. At chess, anyway.


And in chess, the player moves in a predictable, predetermined manner. There is no variation in chess. There is a finite predictability to it. The computer has in it's memory every possible move and every possible countermeasure. And it still takes several minutes to come to a sollution. In a combat situation, the fighter wouldn't have to be brilliant. They don't have to strategize.. in fact their best friend is not to strategize. In a space fight, or any dogfight, you wouldn't have that time to calculate a countermeasure.


In space, when it comes to targeting, you need computers. You can't do that shit in your head, or even just punching buttons on some calculator. This isn't some WWII bullshit where you simply move the gun and aim it at something a few hundred meters away. Distances are vast, and computers are a necessity just to deal with it. To say that for some mystical reason (the Force, I guess, or human pride/ego) humans can do better is just not examining the situation as it actually is.


That's not the argument. No one is saying computer targeting systems are bad or flawed. But a complelty computer operated weapons system lacking in human interface would simply not be effective as a manned system.



Show me a human weapon system that's shot down any assailant, without taking damage, without the target being able to avoid the fire, that always hits.

Oh wait you can't. And you asking me to do that with a computer system is a strawman argument.


No. It's not at all. The question isn't if a human could outperform a computer. It's this. Could acomputer operated weapons system be so perfect that any manned fighter would be shot down before being able to attack and seriously damage the other ship?

You've just proven that your system is as flawed as any human operated one. It seems the ones who live in a mystical fanatasy world is the counterpoint. Who seem to think that somehow that this system will be able to identify, track, target, lock on, charge weapon, and fire in.... two seconds. Because that's pretty much what you've been arguing. And I'm sorry. But that's just not realistic. Not even remotely realistic.


Why don't you just figure out the probability of hitting a target 5,000 km away with an acceleration capability of 34 m/s/s and a mean surface area (relative to weapon sensors) of 8 square meters. Taking into account your own acceleration and velocity and the time it takes for light to travel the distance. This is a high speed combat situation, tick tock, tick tock.

A computer could do that faster than it took for you to read it, let alone to do it. And it could move the weapon and fire it as well.

A human would be nice to have around of course, for a few reasons, but not because the computer isn't as good at targeting.

See above. Targeting computers have nothing to do with it. And your argument is flawed. Depending on the rotation and positioning speed, charge time, and given data. It would take the computer roughly one minute to calculate everything you described. If you believe it could do it in seconds then your just being silly. And guess where that pilot is liable to be in one minute. Let me give you a hint... NOT THERE.

I've just realized that I've been trying to use logic to fight an illogical argument. It's much like trying to use a candle to fight a tidal wave.

I could point out that your argument is skewered. For some reason the battleship technology is always advancing but the fighter technology remains stationary. As if no one is going to ever think of a way to counter lazer weapons... because you know, we're all so keen on creating weapons that we ourselves couldn't defend against.

But let me try to convey some similar situations.

Man with gun vs man without gun. I have been in such a situation. I am still here. The situation differs because both parties have the same maneuvarabiity. But the opponent has the adavatage at a distance. But it can be overcome.

I know. But the gunman doesn't have a targeting computer or shielding. IT'S NOT THE SAME! Yes. It's not the same, but it is so very similar.

Gladiator vs Soldier. In numerous instances has there been a gladiator left with a single dagger to defend himself against a soldier with spear or sword, in armor, with shield in which the gladiator found himself a victor.

I know. No targeting computer... and they didn't have lightspeed weapons! If they had lightspeed weapons then.... yeah... shh.

There's more. But no matter what logical, real world situations we use you say it can't be translated into this fictional possible situation. So when we use other fictional possible situations tht real world dynamics forbid it.

All these technologies you cite support your opposition. You scream that your technology will advance... guess what, so will your oppositions.

Edit: I'm withdrawing from this argument as well. Because I also realized that your opinion doesn't matter one iota. Some day, you and I might fight each other in space. On that day, we'll see who was right. But until then, this is an argument of opinion and opinions are hard to change.

Interesting. So you say no need for bombers, a CAP, escort, a small, difficult to hit craft?

It would seem like just about every Sci Fi genere except Star Trek disagrees with you :)

Actually not entirely correct (sorry if someone else has already mentioned this) but Star Fleet Battles uses carriers and fighters...

All races had their own fighters and variants as well as the different types of carrier and escorts.

What's your point? If you blinded a human in the cockpit of your fighter, he'd be unable to fly the ship ether, and if you blinded the ship's sensors, he'd be just as helpless as a jammed missile.
But you have to jam both his sight and his sensors that are more complicated than that of missiles.


By altering the mirror ever so slightly, slowing the rotation speed down, etc.
Then you are doing something that isn't instant.

At closer ranges, slight distortions in the mirror's surface could be used to rapidly move the beam around.
Any "slight" distortion renders the weapon useless.

Yes, but it could also use a wavelength of light, such as Gamma rays, or Xrays or such, to produce the same effect, from a distance, without giving away the fact that they're targeting a fighter. The fighter may not know anything is going on until they explode.
Yeah, they would never notice the heating up at all.

While I agree that you could coat the fighters in materials to deflect the energy from the Lasers, if should be noted that so could the capital ships, but in greater amounts.
And no one is arguing laser beams would be mounted on fighters.


You keep bringing up Star Trek, Star Trek has Tractor Beams.

Inventing a tractor beam, or a shotgun-like array is FAR more likely then building a fighter that can cross the distance between the earth and the Moon in an acceptable amount of time, not get shotdown as they fly towards their goal, and carries enough fuel, armor, and ammo to do anything to the capital ship when they get to it.
Both patently false. Explain the tech used in a Star Trek tractor beam.

Well the basic idea behind the Borg is that they're suppose to be decenterized, having no central bridge and such. I'm not sure what your point is about remodulating shields automatically, hell, even Voyager should do that, if it wasn't for the fact that what they do in Star Trek, as in all Science fiction, is for the PLOT.

You appear to have missed my point.

Only if the two are moving in a straightline. The larger ship cannot maneuver. In a fight, it pretty much becomes a sitting duck.

Pray do tell me how a fighter would be able to be maneuverable enough?

Every move it makes takes energy, and energy is a limited resource.

Secondly most of fighters momentum comes from the mothership's momentum this means that for a fighter to fly around the target which, say, is moving, say, 50 km/s towards the mothership (velocity is relative) the fighter has to have energy to nullify that difference.

Thirdly, if the velocity difference is something like 50 km/s it takes over 8 minutes at 10g acceleration to overcome that difference.

But that's just not realistic. Not even remotely realistic.
You're right...

The radar and detection itself has speed that's equivalent to the speed of light.

At a range of 300,000 km - here to moon - it's 1 second delay.

If you believe it could do it in seconds then your just being silly.
For the record, extrapolating trajectory can be done within microseconds on current computers from sufficient data collected.

A modern computer can churn millions of operations per second, when even I could probably count a simple line from two co-ordinates in a minute a computer can extrapolate much more difficult trajectory faster than a blink of an eye.

You also have to note that when limiting maneuverability to human standards - say 10 g at maximum - at a range of 10,000 km the fighter could've altered its linearly projected course by something like 1.5 meters (http://www.google.com/search?q=0.5+%2A+100+m%2Fs%5E2+%2A+%28%282%2A10000km%2Fc%29+%2B+0.1s%29%5E2&btnG=Search&lr=) before the laser beam strikes (2x time of travel + 0.1 seconds for projection, targeting and launch).

Pray do tell me how a fighter would be able to be maneuverable enough?

Every move it makes takes energy, and energy is a limited resource.

Secondly most of fighters momentum comes from the mothership's momentum this means that for a fighter to fly around the target which, say, is moving, say, 50 km/s towards the mothership (velocity is relative) the fighter has to have energy to nullify that difference.

Thirdly, if the velocity difference is something like 50 km/s it takes over 8 minutes at 10g acceleration to overcome that difference.


So fighters will lose the ability to maneuver and their engines somehow in the future? This is what fighter jets do at the moment. It is how they fight. Space isn't going to suddenly prevent them from doing it. Amd what's all this about overcoming differences? If the ship was coming at them, and they were coming at it. Easier work for them. The ship has two options. Keep their shields up and hope they hold out till they get to the other ship. Or fight. If they fight, chances are they're not gonna be getting to the capital ship without suffering some serious damage.



For the record, extrapolating trajectory can be done within microseconds on current computers from sufficient data collected.

A modern computer can churn millions of operations per second, when even I could probably count a simple line from two co-ordinates in a minute a computer can extrapolate much more difficult trajectory faster than a blink of an eye.

You also have to note that when limiting maneuverability to human standards - say 10 g at maximum - at a range of 10,000 km the fighter could've altered its linearly projected course by something like 1.5 meters (http://www.google.com/search?q=0.5+%2A+100+m%2Fs%5E2+%2A+%28%282%2A10000km%2Fc%29+%2B+0.1s%29%5E2&btnG=Search&lr=) before the laser beam strikes (2x time of travel + 0.1 seconds for projection, targeting and launch).

So you believe that the computer can at 10,000 km, identify a target as an enemy, calculated it's position and rate of acceleration, calculated it's trajectory, calculated it's own trajectory, locked on to the target, moved it's turrets parts into position to fire, and then fire in... nanoseconds.... really? That's what you believe? And we're the ones living in the fantasy magic land

Also. The distance you're quoting is roughly five feet. I could cover that distance going 60 mph in less than a second. I'm sure fighters will be going faster then that. Unless for some reason they lose the ability to move, thrust, and maneuver in the next hundred years.

GTF Hercules ftw.

Only if the two are moving in a straightline. The larger ship cannot maneuver. In a fight, it pretty much becomes a sitting duck.

Yes, it can maneuver. It has engines. For crying out loud, the only reasons you've given for this supposed performance superiority of fighter craft is using flawed analogies between trucks v motorcycles and airplanes vs naval ships!

Some are. But many use at least some modicum of sense. Pointing to above. They're highly accurate enough to know that a ship at the size of a battleship wouldn't be able to maneuver with any kind of realistic proponent.

Circular argument... you're using flawed sci fi shows to back up your claim that big ships cannot maneuver, which you claim are accurate because they support your claim!

The aircraft vs naval ship isn't flawed. You claim it is because the naval ship can't fly.

Because there is a fundamental difference between the mechanics of moving through air in an airplane, and moving through water in a ship. There is no fundamental difference whatsoever between "fighter" moving and "ship" moving in space. It's the exact same process, the same medium, the same dimension, the same Newtonian physics.

The naval/aircraft analogy doesn't work. Period. Drop it already, it's dead, it can't be brought back to life.

With the motorcycle analogy I take away the weapons. Both objects are on the same battlefield have the same level of movement. And the scale is equally reflective.

No, the scale is completely wrong. A semi truck doesn't have a scaled-up motorcycle engine. It doesn't have the same acceleration capabilities. And motorcycles will go faster because they are more aerodynamic and because their smaller mass means less friction.

The motorcycle/truck analogy doesn't work because in space, the spacecraft can easily have the same acceleration capability. There is no aerodynamic aspect of space travel, nor is friction from air and road a factor. A rocket engine scales with size and mass.

Though I should perhaps alter the battle to man with a grenadelauncher on a motorcycle vs a tank. The tank might win. But so mightn't the cyclist. And I know your going to argue it's not the same thing. But it really is.

"It really is" isn't an argument. Your analogies are flawed and there is no reason to accept them.

Combat aircrafts are manned. You realize this of course?


Don't get cheeky. Yes, I realize this.

And in chess, the player moves in a predictable, predetermined manner. There is no variation in chess. There is a finite predictability to it. The computer has in it's memory every possible move and every possible countermeasure. And it still takes several minutes to come to a sollution.

Yes. It does. So does a human.

Therefore the human is not superior. See how this works?

Humans are not going to become faster, more intelligent. It's a safe bet computers will become both. Ergo the computers will easily outperform humans.

Computers are already much, much better at physics number crunching than any human could be. And don't pretend that space war or travel is off-the-cuff, casual, intuitive, non-physical non-mathematical.

In a combat situation, the fighter wouldn't have to be brilliant. They don't have to strategize.. in fact their best friend is not to strategize. In a space fight, or any dogfight, you wouldn't have that time to calculate a countermeasure.

We're not talking about "strategizing," just aiming and hitting a moving object with a laser beam. At tens of thousands of kilometers.

That's not the argument. No one is saying computer targeting systems are bad or flawed. But a complelty computer operated weapons system lacking in human interface would simply not be effective as a manned system.

Yes, your argument was that the 'turrets' couldn't even move fast enough to fire, AND that the computer was inferior than humans at targeting.

No. It's not at all. The question isn't if a human could outperform a computer. It's this. Could acomputer operated weapons system be so perfect that any manned fighter would be shot down before being able to attack and seriously damage the other ship?

Doesn't matter who's operating it, if we're talking about a very large ship versus a very small ship, the former has a distinct advantage in every measurable way. It doesn't have to be 'perfect' for this to be true. A larger ship will have greater range, greater power for its weapons, greater sensor resolution and output. The small ship is not going to be any speedier than the large one, and it will be slower than missiles. It's not going to be able to dodge laser beams, even if laser beams will not hit 100% of the time (i.e 'perfect'). It's not going to have the defensive capability to survive the long gauntlet to where it can do any damage - if it even can do any damage.

You've just proven that your system is as flawed as any human operated one. It seems the ones who live in a mystical fanatasy world is the counterpoint. Who seem to think that somehow that this system will be able to identify, track, target, lock on, charge weapon, and fire in.... two seconds. Because that's pretty much what you've been arguing. And I'm sorry. But that's just not realistic. Not even remotely realistic.

This is another strawman. Burn it all you like.

See above. Targeting computers have nothing to do with it.

Great, so now we're not even talking about what we're talking about...

And your argument is flawed. Depending on the rotation and positioning speed, charge time, and given data. It would take the computer roughly one minute to calculate everything you described.


...and you base this on... what exactly?

Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

Even so, 'one minute' is sure as fuck faster than you can do it. (If you even can.) So, as you say, in combat tasks where high speed and every second counts, the slower (i.e, you, human) is replaced with the faster (i.e, a computer) processor.

If you believe it could do it in seconds then your just being silly. And guess where that pilot is liable to be in one minute. Let me give you a hint... NOT THERE.

Yeah, the pilot will be dead, and the political leadership will have to explain to a grieving widow and children why their young space fighter pilot had to die uselessly. And I don't think your motorcycle analogies will suffice.

So fighters will lose the ability to maneuver and their engines somehow in the future? This is what fighter jets do at the moment. It is how they fight. Space isn't going to suddenly prevent them from doing it. Amd what's all this about overcoming differences? If the ship was coming at them, and they were coming at it. Easier work for them. The ship has two options. Keep their shields up and hope they hold out till they get to the other ship. Or fight. If they fight, chances are they're not gonna be getting to the capital ship without suffering some serious damage.


Yes, but modern fighters use flaps, not thrusters, to shift position, and have a medium in which they can bleed off extra energy and bank on. Space fighters don't have that, they have to spend fuel for every movement and spend fuel to bleed off energy.


So you believe that the computer can at 10,000 km, identify a target as an enemy, calculated it's position and rate of acceleration, calculated it's trajectory, calculated it's own trajectory, locked on to the target, moved it's turrets parts into position to fire, and then fire in... nanoseconds.... really? That's what you believe? And we're the ones living in the fantasy magic land

Also. The distance you're quoting is roughly five feet. I could cover that distance going 60 mph in less than a second. I'm sure fighters will be going faster then that. Unless for some reason they lose the ability to move, thrust, and maneuver in the next hundred years.

Modern Computers track the orbital positions of space junk, it's not hard.

What he's saying in the second bit is that assuming the fighter knew he was about to be shot, he could only move 1.5 meters IE 5 feet, in any direction before it hit.

But you have to jam both his sight and his sensors that are more complicated than that of missiles.
Oh dear. You're not seriously arguing that people would be looking out the window to find targets, are you?

And why are you arguing that missiles would have less complex sensors? I see no reason why, for example, you cannot put the same level of sensors on the missile as the fighter.

Then you are doing something that isn't instant.

The time required to be faster then a pilot would be able to realize and react to an incoming beam.

Any "slight" distortion renders the weapon useless
For a human, maybe, but not, perhaps, for a computer. A Laser hitting a liquid mirror, no matter how distorted it maybe, still bounces off at some angle(s). A computer would be able to calculate those angles and distort, as needed, to keep the beem on target.

And no one is arguing laser beams would be mounted on fighters.
Indeed, but this holds true with all armor types that maybe needed; nothing the fighter could carry (it would have to be much smaller then the fighter, which is already small compared to the captial ship), will do any useful damage. It's like arguing that, for example, a species of spider has extremely deathly venom; that's fine and dandy, but if it's fangs can't break the skin, it's useless.

Both patently false. Explain the tech used in a Star Trek tractor beam.

Don't have to. I wasn't the one who started talking about Star Trek as an example of how big ships can be out maneuvered by smaller ships.

You appear to have missed my point.
Have I? This Thread seems to have been started by a bunch of people who thing BSG is 'ultra real' and everything in it is really how 'space combat will happen', when if fact both are wrong.

In summery: don't cite examples from science fiction if you don't want to deal with the gritty details of the whole science fiction universe as a whole, especially television shows like Star Trek, BSG, or things like Star Wars.

Yes, it can maneuver. It has engines. For crying out loud, the only reasons you've given for this supposed performance superiority of fighter craft is using flawed analogies between trucks v motorcycles and airplanes vs naval ships!


No one is claiming superiority. You keep relying on propulsion, acceleration, but that has nothing to do with maneuverability. A large ship could not, for instance make a sudden 180 and reverse it's direction in moments. Or loop de loop, move from side to side, or any of the maneuvers that a small fighter could, while it is capable of it, performing the action would be futile. It makes up for it's lack of maneuverability by being better fortified and better armed so it doesn't have to maneuver.


Circular argument... you're using flawed sci fi shows to back up your claim that big ships cannot maneuver, which you claim are accurate because they support your claim!


Not accurate, but logical. A big ship has more bulk then a little ship. In the time it would take your capital ship to complete a singgle loop de loop (I know it's more or less a useful maneuver) the fighter could have done it more times. There's more to move then on the smaller craft.

Snip

Yes the analogies are flawed, but we don't have a perfect analogy because we don't have a situation that is comparable. Simply because the analogy doesn't exactly match the dynamics of a space battle doesn't mean they're not relevent. One analogy seeked to show that a larger object vs a smaller object has inherent flaws in maneuverability then the other. The other shows that even with automated systems and tons of weapons, a fighter can still strike and destroy an enemy target.



Yes. It does. So does a human.

Therefore the human is not superior. See how this works?

Humans are not going to become faster, more intelligent. It's a safe bet computers will become both. Ergo the computers will easily outperform humans.

Computers are already much, much better at physics number crunching than any human could be. And don't pretend that space war or travel is off-the-cuff, casual, intuitive, non-physical non-mathematical.


This has never been an argument. The argument is about the practicallity of an automated system vs a manned system. No one is saying remove computers. No ones saying computers aren't necessary or aren't useful. Only that there are things men and the human can do that a computer simply cannot.

No one said humans were superior. You took that away from a statement that said no such thing.


We're not talking about "strategizing," just aiming and hitting a moving object with a laser beam. At tens of thousands of kilometers.
[quote]

A task that is difficult. Even for a computer. Especially when you add in variables for directional shifts, feigns, and maneuvers.

[quote]
Yes, your argument was that the 'turrets' couldn't even move fast enough to fire, AND that the computer was inferior than humans at targeting.


Not my argument. My statement was that where a human could think to target where the fighter might go, a computer could not. Computers can't think, and that is their inherent flaw.


Doesn't matter who's operating it, if we're talking about a very large ship versus a very small ship, the former has a distinct advantage in every measurable way. It doesn't have to be 'perfect' for this to be true. A larger ship will have greater range, greater power for its weapons, greater sensor resolution and output. The small ship is not going to be any speedier than the large one, and it will be slower than missiles. It's not going to be able to dodge laser beams, even if laser beams will not hit 100% of the time (i.e 'perfect'). It's not going to have the defensive capability to survive the long gauntlet to where it can do any damage - if it even can do any damage.


A single small ship against a large ship, yes, the large ship could probably pick it off. But here's the thing. The only way for fighters to be absolutely obsolete is if the larger ship could pick them off absolutely, every last one of them, no matter the size of the fleet, without suffering damage. This has been the debate.

People have been arguing that the large ship would just oblitterate the fighters automatically without them being able to do anything about it. This is what we've been arguing.


This is another strawman. Burn it all you like.


Not at all. I asked you to proof me wrong. I asked you to validate your argument that the archetype system you're using as the basis for your thesis validates you. It doesn't seem to. You can not document that it hits every target. Or that it is able to identify and track a mobile object easily enough to pick them off before they could do damage. Which is exactly what you're arguing with your advanced technology.


Great, so now we're not even talking about what we're talking about...


I am still talking about what I am talking about. But apparently you misunderstand what it is I am talking about.



...and you base this on... what exactly?

Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

Even so, 'one minute' is sure as fuck faster than you can do it. (If you even can.) So, as you say, in combat tasks where high speed and every second counts, the slower (i.e, you, human) is replaced with the faster (i.e, a computer) processor.


I base it on a rough estimation of how long it would take to move an object. Calculations have nothing to do with it. A fan still moves at the same rotation speed no matter who turns it on. People seem to be ignoring mechanics. A piston still moves at the speed the piston moves whether I start it up or a computer.

Another part of the argument. People seem to think these lazers would be moved instantaneously. That they would magically be able to fire as soon as you had a target scouted... this is inaccurate. Unless your using some omni-lazer or something...

Furthermore, lazer weapons would be realitively easy for a fighter to counter. Charged particle weapons would be more difficult, but then the turret rotation becomes more of a factor. Plus they would also lose time between charge for the weapon so that the fighters could get in closer more easily with less chance of being hit.

Yes, but modern fighters use flaps, not thrusters, to shift position, and have a medium in which they can bleed off extra energy and bank on. Space fighters don't have that, they have to spend fuel for every movement and spend fuel to bleed off energy.

From what I understand, there's really no loss of momentum in space. Or at least, if there is, it's a slow loss since there's not really a force acting on it to stop its momentum. So wouldn't it be feasible that a space fighter could use some method that would allow it to maintain it's momentum without using excessive amounts of energy or fuel? For some reason I imagine the fighter having short thrusters that it can use to alter its course without losing momentum that don't take up much fuel. Or something similar.




Modern Computers track the orbital positions of space junk, it's not hard.


I imagine it might be harder to track concious objects.


What he's saying in the second bit is that assuming the fighter knew he was about to be shot, he could only move 1.5 meters IE 5 feet, in any direction before it hit.


Then I misinterpreted, I assumed he meant that the pilot would have to move five feet any direction before it hit in order to avoid being struck. A task that most certainly is within the fighters ability.

I still find it odd that everyone is advancing the capital ship to godhood but is leaving the fighter where it's at.

From what I understand, there's really no loss of momentum in space. Or at least, if there is, it's a slow loss since there's not really a force acting on it to stop its momentum. So wouldn't it be feasible that a space fighter could use some method that would allow it to maintain it's momentum without using excessive amounts of energy or fuel? For some reason I imagine the fighter having short thrusters that it can use to alter its course without losing momentum that don't take up much fuel. Or something similar.
Well, it would have to use small thrusters, but, because you're trying to change the heading of the fighter, you'd have to spend longer burns (or use larger engines), in order to move the object in a different direction because the object becomes somewhat more massive (or rather, gains Inertial mass) the faster it moves. The more massive it is, the more energy needs to be spent moving it around. Even then, if you don't cancel your original momentium, all your movements would be 'smeared', if you will, over the flight path. A Loop, for example, would become more like the graph you'd get from SinX.



I imagine it might be harder to track concious objects.
Maybe, but a computer would, within reason, be able to figure out where the object is, and the possible vectors it could move.

Take the fighter example: a computer sees a fighter heading towards the capital ship, and says "where could it go?"

First it measures it's speed and acceration, then, ether based on previous encounters, or estimating, it decides about how massive the fighter is at a standstill. From this information it starts to create a model.

first it inputs the basic facts of physics, and creates a cone of places the fighter cannot 'possibly be', such as doing a 180 (at the current speeds, of course), because it would rip the fighter apart, second, it inputs how many G-forces a human could withstand before blacking out, and again inputs this into the model, creating another cone of 'no fly zones'.

Basically, the idea is that, the completed model will show where the fighter could be, within a set amount of time. If, for clarity's sake, the fighter can in fact only move around 1.5 meters, that's the max radius of the cone of possible vectors the fighter could be at. While, in theory, it could move 1.5 meters, in ANY direction, doing so, for a number of vectors, would be impossible or dangerous.

I still find it odd that everyone is advancing the capital ship to godhood but is leaving the fighter where it's at.
We're not, or at least, I'm not. But in space fighters are just too small to be useful over the distances that exist in space.

This has never been an argument. The argument is about the practicallity of an automated system vs a manned system. No one is saying remove computers. No ones saying computers aren't necessary or aren't useful. Only that there are things men and the human can do that a computer simply cannot.

But what you're saying is that, even though the computer has tracked the target, locked weapons, charged them, etc, a system with a human pressing a button allowing the computer to fire the weapons is more effective then a computer just cutting out the middle man and firing itself.


A task that is difficult. Even for a computer. Especially when you add in variables for directional shifts, feigns, and maneuvers.

But as I said in my post above, there is a limit to what variable their can be and a computer can calculate that.


Not my argument. My statement was that where a human could think to target where the fighter might go, a computer could not. Computers can't think, and that is their inherent flaw.
Why couldn't a computer estimate where the target may go? It's not any different then some forms of probability.


Another part of the argument. People seem to think these lazers would be moved instantaneously. That they would magically be able to fire as soon as you had a target scouted... this is inaccurate. Unless your using some omni-lazer or something...

But at the distances they'd be shooting the fighters at, it would be instantaneous, or very nearly so.


Furthermore, lazer weapons would be realitively easy for a fighter to counter. Charged particle weapons would be more difficult, but then the turret rotation becomes more of a factor. Plus they would also lose time between charge for the weapon so that the fighters could get in closer more easily with less chance of being hit.

Technically speaking, even if the lasers/charged particles/railgun slugs/etc. fail to nail the fighters, the capital is still winning by making them expend their limited fuel to get out of the way. :)

But what you're saying is that, even though the computer has tracked the target, locked weapons, charged them, etc, a system with a human pressing a button allowing the computer to fire the weapons is more effective then a computer just cutting out the middle man and firing itself.


Not exactly. I allowed for an AI system. One that could, for intents and purposes think for itself that's above the system of a simply automated system. But in some cases, where a manned system might hold fire for a feign, an automated system isn't liable to do so. Barring AI systems. What I was attempting to say is a system that locks on and simply fires is less reliable than a manned system, because it incresses the chance for the computer to be fooled.


But as I said in my post above, there is a limit to what variable their can be and a computer can calculate that.


It can, but it can't prepare for every variable. Which, at least from how some are saying it, is what people are arguing.


Why couldn't a computer estimate where the target may go? It's not any different then some forms of probability.


It could but it couldn't make a snap decision. But one problem with computers is their logic. Any assesement it made would be on the principal of gain. What would be the best decision, or most likely decision based on someone else perception of what would be the best decision. The problem appears when you realize that humans make stupid mistakes and stupid decisions that have nothing at all to do with the best decision.



But at the distances they'd be shooting the fighters at, it would be instantaneous, or very nearly so.


That's another thing... where are people getting these distances? I mean honestly, people are talking about kilometers and stuff but why would it be at tens of thousands of kilometers?


Technically speaking, even if the lasers/charged particles/railgun slugs/etc. fail to nail the fighters, the capital is still winning by making them expend their limited fuel to get out of the way. :)

Granted. But the fighters don't have to beat the capital ship. Only distract and be enough of a nuisance that the capital ship spends so much time attackiing them that their buddies in their capital ship can take the other guy out.

People are arguing that fighters are impractical because they would just be killed off before they could do anything at all. This is debatable. Even with a highly advanced computer, fighters can be practical and useful. It all depends on how they're used.

So fighters will lose the ability to maneuver and their engines somehow in the future? This is what fighter jets do at the moment. It is how they fight. Space isn't going to suddenly prevent them from doing it.
When in space there's no air to use for maneuvering.

Everything has to rely on thrust and that's an extremely limited resource....Unless you figure out a way to project power directly and even then putting a several hundred gigawatt powerplant on to a fighter...?

Amd what's all this about overcoming differences? If the ship was coming at them, and they were coming at it. Easier work for them. The ship has two options.
Look, when your fighter is approaching a large ship at 50 km/s it's practically a fly by mission OTOH the fighter STILL has to return to the mothership (which, granted, is also travelling at the similar speeds in my scenario).

A missile only has to hit the target, it doesn't have to worry about returning back or life support.

Keep their shields up and hope they hold out till they get to the other ship.Shields? Exactly what kind of shields are actually available? The answer is: None.
So you believe that the computer can at 10,000 km, identify a target as an enemy, calculated it's position and rate of acceleration, calculated it's trajectory, calculated it's own trajectory, locked on to the target, moved it's turrets parts into position to fire, and then fire in... nanoseconds.... really?
Nanoseconds? I quoted 0.1 seconds which is 100 million nanoseconds.

For the record, one arithmetic operation in current computers takes slightly under a nanosecond.

And linear projection is a simple vector calculation, requiring two observation dots and time difference between them - Give *me* a minute and I'll probably manage an approximation where the ship will be one second from the observations. A computer might do thousands of them in a second.
Also. The distance you're quoting is roughly five feet. I could cover that distance going 60 mph in less than a second. I'm sure fighters will be going faster then that. Unless for some reason they lose the ability to move, thrust, and maneuver in the next hundred years.
I wasn't talking about speed - I was talking about variation against linearly projected trajectory.

The fighter itself, if moving 50 km/s, would have moved 5 kilometers in 0.1 seconds - But the location where it is IF doing "sudden evasive maneuvers" is only 1.5 meters off the projection.

Snip

Granted mostly. Though the shields bit was in response to earlier comments about how a fighter wouldn't be able to get past the shields of the capital ship.

Aside from that. With Xomic's help I can understand where you are coming from. Though. I still think fighters could be useful if properly utilized.

Not exactly. I allowed for an AI system. One that could, for intents and purposes think for itself that's above the system of a simply automated system. But in some cases, where a manned system might hold fire for a feign, an automated system isn't liable to do so. Barring AI systems. What I was attempting to say is a system that locks on and simply fires is less reliable than a manned system, because it incresses the chance for the computer to be fooled.



It can, but it can't prepare for every variable. Which, at least from how some are saying it, is what people are arguing.

So, basically, you're arguing that computers need fuzzy logic to perform well. I agree, but like I said, it does seem like you just want some guy pressing a button.



It could but it couldn't make a snap decision. But one problem with computers is their logic. Any assesement it made would be on the principal of gain. What would be the best decision, or most likely decision based on someone else perception of what would be the best decision. The problem appears when you realize that humans make stupid mistakes and stupid decisions that have nothing at all to do with the best decision.


Very True, and beyond programing the computer with a full database of psychological analysts, it probably can't understand humans, or the way they react.

But there is no reason why, for example, it can't be programed with some basic knowledge, like, perhaps humans statistically turn right more often.

But in someways we're over thinking this; all the computer has to do is keep the beam/turret on the fighter until it pops,and even reaching unpredictably will probably not save you from that


That's another thing... where are people getting these distances? I mean honestly, people are talking about kilometers and stuff but why would it be at tens of thousands of kilometers?


Because the distances in space are vast. Take the moon for example, it's something like roughly 400,000 km away from the earth, and it takes four days for a ship we built to reach the moon, to go to mars, it takes 6 months.

There is no reason that battlefields should be any smaller then what they are currently for ships, and will most likely be larger, especially when all your weapons basically have unlimited range.

Now, if you where going to attack something, like Earth or another capital ship, why would you even try getting any closer then the distance between the moon and the earth?

Tens of thousands is probably an over estimation, but that doesn't mean the field won't be large. And even at 1000 kms, they degree difference between the fighter before it did a movement, and after, would be very small.


Granted. But the fighters don't have to beat the capital ship. Only distract and be enough of a nuisance that the capital ship spends so much time attackiing them that their buddies in their capital ship can take the other guy out.

Sounds like all the more reason to let a computer handle the weapon systems :D if it has basic threat assessment, it should just target the other capital to begin with.

People are arguing that fighters are impractical because they would just be killed off before they could do anything at all. This is debatable. Even with a highly advanced computer, fighters can be practical and useful. It all depends on how they're used.

True, but is it worth it? I mean, we COULD build a flying aircraft carrier, for example, but it's simply not worth it.

I'm not saying they'd be completely obsolete, but I just can't see a role for them, not with the fighters being as limited as they are in terms of fuel and the weapons they'd carry.

People are arguing that fighters are impractical because they would just be killed off before they could do anything at all.
Not only that, it's also a question of energy: Fighters have to return to the mothership within a time limit, dumb fire missiles, drones, et al have no such requirement.


Here's a good site for futuristic space setting, done a bit in tongue in cheek (let alone poorly hidden advertising) but still has lots of thought provoking content...just don't take it all at face value and you're good to go:
http://projectrho.com/rocket/index.html

...and here's the relevant bit about space fighter discussions which makes a good read:
http://projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3x.html#fighters

...and this about general design of a warship:
http://projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3as.html

:)

Not only that, it's also a question of energy: Fighters have to return to the mothership within a time limit, dumb fire missiles, drones, et al have no such requirement.


Here's a good site for futuristic space setting, done a bit in tongue in cheek (let alone poorly hidden advertising) but still has lots of thought provoking content...just don't take it all at face value and you're good to go:
http://projectrho.com/rocket/index.html

...and here's the relevant bit about space fighter discussions which makes a good read:
http://projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3x.html#fighters

...and this about general design of space ship:
http://projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3as.html

:)
yeah, it makes a good read, but doesn't really provide any support for the argument.

No one is claiming superiority. You keep relying on propulsion, acceleration, but that has nothing to do with maneuverability. A large ship could not, for instance make a sudden 180 and reverse it's direction in moments.

If it has the same acceleration capabilities, it sure can.

You're right that it will take longer to rotate about it's long axis, since that's a longer distance. But, this doesn't mean much at 50,000 kilometers. The only thing that will make a laser miss is the target's ability to be somewhere else within a certain amount of time - acceleration.

Or loop de loop

Pardon? You're referring to Immelmans?

, move from side to side, or any of the maneuvers that a small fighter could, while it is capable of it, performing the action would be futile. It makes up for it's lack of maneuverability by being better fortified and better armed so it doesn't have to maneuver.

Even if you insist on this maneuverability advantage, you're ignoring here the higher power, and thus the longer range weaponry and the more damaging weaponry. Given the questionability of using armor at all in hard sci fi it's a safe bet that all the larger craft needs to do is get in one hit, and it will have a nice long time to do it against small craft with shorter-range, lower-energy weapons and low endurance to boot.

Not accurate, but logical. A big ship has more bulk then a little ship. In the time it would take your capital ship to complete a singgle loop de loop (I know it's more or less a useful maneuver) the fighter could have done it more times. There's more to move then on the smaller craft.

That's not why it would take longer. And this advantage is not a meaningful one in this situation.

Yes the analogies are flawed, but we don't have a perfect analogy because we don't have a situation that is comparable.

A flawed analogy means the situation is not comparable, which it isn't. Grasping at convenient earth-vehicle analogies is not a good argument as to why manned space fighters are a good idea! Spacecraft of any size are not like aircraft, and they're not like ships on the ocean. Space is a completely different environment and the comparative advantages of aircraft vs ships rely mostly on the air and sea environments and the mechanisms of traveling in fluid environments.
Space is a vacuum, there's no flying, there's no sailing; smaller things don't go faster as you might expect them to do any more than smaller rockets go faster than larger ones.

Simply because the analogy doesn't exactly match the dynamics of a space battle doesn't mean they're not relevent. One analogy seeked to show that a larger object vs a smaller object has inherent flaws in maneuverability then the other.

I showed those flaws are due to the environments they applied to, and not space. This is why the analogy is not a good argument.

The other shows that even with automated systems and tons of weapons, a fighter can still strike and destroy an enemy target.

But it doesn't, because the fighter has to get close to the target to do so. The target, being a larger ship, will be able to move away from the fighter, always keeping it at a distance. Say, the distance it can hit the fighter with its long range weapons. The fighter will not have as long range weapons, because it is by definition a close range combat craft, and will be effectively useless until it can close that distance. An impossible task, since, whatever the rotational capabilities of the bigger ship are, it will have the same potential acceleration, and it will have more propellant with which to travel.

To show that the fighter can strike and destroy a larger ship you have to show that the fighter can get into a position to do so without being destroyed several times over first. It only works if you start thinking of ambushes and cloaking and stealth, in which case guys with explosives on their chest can work too.

This has never been an argument. The argument is about the practicallity of an automated system vs a manned system. No one is saying remove computers. No ones saying computers aren't necessary or aren't useful. Only that there are things men and the human can do that a computer simply cannot.

No one said humans were superior. You took that away from a statement that said no such thing.

You JUST SAID that the humans are superior at "things" than human. I gather you're still referring to things like the ability to aim at a target? That would be the relevant argument, but you're still wrong if you think that the future (or even modern) computer is inferior to humans in that particular thing.


We're not talking about "strategizing," just aiming and hitting a moving object with a laser beam. At tens of thousands of kilometers.


A task that is difficult. Even for a computer. Especially when you add in variables for directional shifts, feigns, and maneuvers.


Yes, but it's obviously more difficult for a human than a computer.

My statement was that where a human could think to target where the fighter might go, a computer could not. Computers can't think, and that is their inherent flaw.

Computers can 'guess' just like you or I. There's not some magical component to choosing from among several alternatives. There is however a raw computational limit to doing so in a calculated manner, a limit computers do not have whereas even the most intelligent human has a hard-wired limit based on brain size and whatnot.

You can build a bigger computer, can't build a bigger brain.

Not at all. I asked you to proof me wrong. I asked you to validate your argument that the archetype system you're using as the basis for your thesis validates you. It doesn't seem to. You can not document that it hits every target. Or that it is able to identify and track a mobile object easily enough to pick them off before they could do damage. Which is exactly what you're arguing with your advanced technology.

My 'archetype system' is physics.

And common sense. An automated system does. Not. Need. To. Be. Perfect. In. Order. To. Be. Superior. To. Human. You trying to say that I'm arguing that it IS perfect is a strawman! I wouldn't argue that it's perfect, because nothing is 'perfect,' and because its being perfect is not relevant to my argument here.

I base it on a rough estimation of how long it would take to move an object. Calculations have nothing to do with it.

Ah. An 'estimation,' but with no calculations. More human intuition mumbo jumbo. I'm going to ignore your 'estimation' since it's nothing more than 'I just pulled it out of my ass.' If you'll forgive the expression.

A fan still moves at the same rotation speed no matter who turns it on. People seem to be ignoring mechanics. A piston still moves at the speed the piston moves whether I start it up or a computer.

True. But the computer will move the pistons and fans in such a way that it is more effectively aiming the weapon system at a moving target in space. Your 'estimations' don't make up for your being a human.

Another part of the argument. People seem to think these lazers would be moved instantaneously. That they would magically be able to fire as soon as you had a target scouted... this is inaccurate. Unless your using some omni-lazer or something...

Furthermore, lazer weapons would be realitively easy for a fighter to counter. Charged particle weapons would be more difficult, but then the turret rotation becomes more of a factor. Plus they would also lose time between charge for the weapon so that the fighters could get in closer more easily with less chance of being hit.

Charged particle beams wouldn't even propagate in space.

Neutral particle beams would be basically impossible to protect against without meters and meters of dense armor and I don't know what kind might possibly block them.

Lasers are only as easy to 'counter' as the amount of energy they deliver and the amount the hull can absorb. Which is a lot, in the case of larger ships lasers, and not much at all, in the case of small crafts.

So, basically, you're arguing that computers need fuzzy logic to perform well. I agree, but like I said, it does seem like you just want some guy pressing a button.


More of wanting something that can think pressing the button. Computers are grande. But they're easily manipulated. If they weren't, they wouldn't be as practical as they are.



Very True, and beyond programing the computer with a full database of psychological analysts, it probably can't understand humans, or the way they react.

But there is no reason why, for example, it can't be programed with some basic knowledge, like, perhaps humans statistically turn right more often.


True enough. But that's part of the problem when people argue against fighters. If the system is wholly automated that means it's going to be terribly predictable. Because it's process is going to be predictable. And being predictable is the worst thing to be in a fight.


But in someways we're over thinking this; all the computer has to do is keep the beam/turret on the fighter until it pops,and even reaching unpredictably will probably not save you from that


But then again. You've got to think of this. If by rotating the lens for a lazer x degrees you can rotate it's path to track by one foot every second for that's how long it takes to rotate it x degrees and the ship is able to move at five feet per second,your lens is always going to be four feet behind it. That was the biggest argument. People seeming to be ignoring the fact that even if the computer can process where to aim in a nanosecond, it's not going to be able to move it's weapon in to position in that nanosecond and fire, all within a sinlge moment while the fighter would, for some reason, stand still.



Because the distances in space are vast. Take the moon for example, it's something like roughly 400,000 km away from the earth, and it takes four days for a ship we built to reach the moon, to go to mars, it takes 6 months.

There is no reason that battlefields should be any smaller then what they are currently for ships, and will most likely be larger, especially when all your weapons basically have unlimited range.

Now, if you where going to attack something, like Earth or another capital ship, why would you even try getting any closer then the distance between the moon and the earth?

Tens of thousands is probably an over estimation, but that doesn't mean the field won't be large. And even at 1000 kms, they degree difference between the fighter before it did a movement, and after, would be very small.


Understandable. But then again. Wouldn't it require a vast generator to be able to project a lazer beam or any weapon of the sort that would work at lightspeeds to be projected tens of thousands of kilometers? And wouldn't it require a massive generator to be able to fire multiple lazers? Or have they advanced the technology since the last time I looked into it?


Sounds like all the more reason to let a computer handle the weapon systems :D if it has basic threat assessment, it should just target the other capital to begin with.


Which would allow the fighter to get in and target a weak spot of the capital ship while it's busy fighting the capital ship.


True, but is it worth it? I mean, we COULD build a flying aircraft carrier, for example, but it's simply not worth it.

I'm not saying they'd be completely obsolete, but I just can't see a role for them, not with the fighters being as limited as they are in terms of fuel and the weapons they'd carry.

That's another thing that gets me. We're talking about hypotheticals. So hypothetically speaking, it is possible that if people build massive battleships for space that scientist might also invest there time in finding an alternative fuel source, one that burns better or provides greater thrust with less fuel. We don't know where science will take us a hundred years from now. So arguing that they would be utterly useless or that there is no point to having one, is silly. After all, do you think a hundred years before the airplane was invented that people would have believed it possible? And I'm not asking if any one thought it was possible, I mean the vast majority of people. at large.

I said it earlier. Until we start having Galactic space battlles everything is in the hypothetic. I can come up with several ideas that would allow fighters to be convenient combat tools. Manned or unmanned. Whether they would work or not is a completly different ball park altogether.

More of wanting something that can think pressing the button. Computers are grande. But they're easily manipulated. If they weren't, they wouldn't be as practical as they are.
But so are humans.


True enough. But that's part of the problem when people argue against fighters. If the system is wholly automated that means it's going to be terribly predictable. Because it's process is going to be predictable. And being predictable is the worst thing to be in a fight.
But humans are also pretty predictable too, and in a fight, it's more or less reactions that count, not unpredictability.

Clearly any battle system needs to be flexible, of course, but most battle plans are based on human predictability.



But then again. You've got to think of this. If by rotating the lens for a lazer x degrees you can rotate it's path to track by one foot every second for that's how long it takes to rotate it x degrees and the ship is able to move at five feet per second,your lens is always going to be four feet behind it. That was the biggest argument. People seeming to be ignoring the fact that even if the computer can process where to aim in a nanosecond, it's not going to be able to move it's weapon in to position in that nanosecond and fire, all within a sinlge moment while the fighter would, for some reason, stand still.

Yes, but you're forgetting basic trig: if I move the turret 1 degree when pointing at something 10000 km away, then the distance between point A (where it was pointing) and point B (where it is pointing now) is something like 174 km.





Understandable. But then again. Wouldn't it require a vast generator to be able to project a lazer beam or any weapon of the sort that would work at lightspeeds to be projected tens of thousands of kilometers? And wouldn't it require a massive generator to be able to fire multiple lazers? Or have they advanced the technology since the last time I looked into it?

Possibly, but remember that, because their is no friction or matter in space, a beam fired from a very small laser would still keep going until it hit the target, even if it was powered by a AA battery.



Which would allow the fighter to get in and target a weak spot of the capital ship while it's busy fighting the capital ship.
With what? This isn't like sinking a ship where you put a hole in the hull and it's over, you'd have to blow up the whole ship.


That's another thing that gets me. We're talking about hypotheticals. So hypothetically speaking, it is possible that if people build massive battleships for space that scientist might also invest there time in finding an alternative fuel source, one that burns better or provides greater thrust with less fuel. We don't know where science will take us a hundred years from now. So arguing that they would be utterly useless or that there is no point to having one, is silly. After all, do you think a hundred years before the airplane was invented that people would have believed it possible? And I'm not asking if any one thought it was possible, I mean the vast majority of people. at large.

True, but even then the improvements would be very slight, and you'd still have to haul it with you.

fighters rule unless they have a suckie pilot that can't even move the space craft. :mp5:

True enough. But that's part of the problem when people argue against fighters. If the system is wholly automated that means it's going to be terribly predictable. Because it's process is going to be predictable. And being predictable is the worst thing to be in a fight.

The problem with that is that within certain radius of a capital ship fighters piloted with humans would be very predictable.

With modern kinetic ammo (several km/s) the 'range of predictability' - range within no amount of evasive maneuvers can change the course enough for the fired weapon to miss - for a fighter (10 by 10 by 10 meter object up to 10 g acceleration) would be within a kilometer or two, with rail guns within 10s to 100s of kilometers (tens to hundreds km/s) but with laser weapons the range would be something like 100,000 km (http://www.google.com/search?q=0.5%2A%28100m%2Fs%5E2%29%2A%28100000km%2Fc%29%5E2&btnG=Search&lr=), from here to third of the way to moon.

Considering the fighter can't keep that kind of maneuverability up for long - thanks to the limits of the pilot and fuel supply - let alone unpredictability - fighter can only accelerate away from where it's engine is pointing - it's pretty safe to assume that within a lightsecond any fighter has a low chance of surviving an encounter with a capital ship, orbital platform or planetary emplacement.