NationStates Jolt Archive

My dear ally TPF brings up an interesting debate, one which I am unable to answer fully, not being a physicist. We have considered, that since space is a vacuum and devoid of gravity and friction (At least no noticable level of friction), that fighters may be obsolete. The reason is that a ship, regardless of how large, can be propelled by a single engine with ease. A larger engine means greater speed, but in space any engine should be able to propel any object. Therefore why use fighters, when a larger ship can be used with the same results?

I say no, that though this is likely true about friction in space (As that was my argument), fighters still have an integrel role in combat, due to the types of missions required of them. They can do things which a super dreadnought per se, cannot (i.e dog fight with other fighters).


Comments? Opinions? Ready! Set! Debate!

I agree with everything you just said.

Takes a lot less power to propel a smaller fighter through space, the smaller fighters mechanisms ie guns and missile bays may open faster so on and so on. However think of how much power would have to go to inertial dampeners and anti gravity to make a 6 million + tonne warship perform like a fighter...lol.

That self same 6 million tonne warship may be as well armed as a fighter by the time power systems to prevent crew from splattering ithemselves were added. Generally the largest mean nasty space fighter for one man that can be made is around 80 meters. Also the fact that more mass takes more power to stop..well to be honest the best agility you could get out of a warship might be like something out of Star trek, but not much more then that, unless its a smaller ship of course. But bigger you are, more mass you have, more mass more power to stop. This gets alot harder the heavier you get.

So no fighters arent obsolete by any means. As far as it goes IC, Fighters are integral for me, my attack frigates are fighters for crying out loud heh, i like them and use them.

I agree with everything you just said.

What the hell, I'm responding to The Phoenix Milita, and my post came first?!?! This is something new...

I think it boils down to which you prefer:
1 big ship vs 1 big ship?
or
1 big ship vs 1 medium ship and 4,000 smaller ships?

Harder to target 4,001 things at once whereas one big target will be a cinch to destroy.

Really we will never find out until it is tried in real life and one could cite dozens of sci-fi references to support the argument for or against fighters in space, but none of that is really relevant imo...

Two words:

Death Star.

This (http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3x.html#fighters) sums the reasons why space fighters are impractical pretty well.

Two words: Engine Density

Your fighter can be as light/heavy as you want, but if it's engine doesn't have enough volume to get the acceleration you want, it can be outperformed by the largest battleship.

I personally think Star Wars-esque fighter swarms would be laughably easy to destroy in NS FT - after all, you can sit ~a light second away and rip away with widebeam weapons, point-defense (which, given the massive range involved, isn't really 'point' anymore), and your own escorts can do the same.

So what I'm gathering from this Atomic Rocket website is that the only effective space weapons would be nuclear warheads and KE weapons. And that fighters would be ineffective because much larger ships can go the same speed, and that there is no "Horizon" to hide behind.

As with most things at any technology level, I think the answer depends on the situation. Fighters are easy to transport, relatively inexpensive, and make for more difficult targets simply by virtue of their small size and (if it's a good fighter) maneuverability. The issue of turning it into a missile is easily addressed as such: fighters generally have a short life expectancy, but missiles have a shorter one. Depending on the means used to produce them, fighters can thus be more cost-effective than an equivalent missile.

More difficult to address is the pilot. The human cost of operating fighters is very high. Advanced, compact AIs can replace humanoid pilots and eliminate the need for life support if they are available, but this obviously depends upon the technological sophistication of the country building them.

I buy the efficiency argument: the smaller mass of a fighter (and thus its lower inertia) may not guarantee the advantage in speed and agility, but making a larger ship with thrusters powerful enough to match is a more expensive job.

That said, I see a fighter's role as a counter to other fighters more than an instrument to use against capital ships. The Death Star scenario is fascinating, but I would hope most designers are smarter than that. Furthermore, assuming the enemy has energy shields, breaking through would be much easier for a heavy hitter than a swarm of fighters. On the other hand, without fighter support of its own, it can be difficult for a larger ship to eliminate enemy fighters which probably (as we said, they don't have to be, but let's be honest: most players aren't going to fit engines on their capital ships that are half again as big as the ships themselves) have superior acceleration. At more than a fraction of a light second away, trying to hit something as small and agile as a fighter is incredibly difficult, even with lasers.

That's very true. Unfortunately this Atomic Rocket site as blown a lot of stuff out of the water,I have been busy with it for the past two hours. Then again I agree that the only time a fighter would be useful and not cost-ineffective is when an AI is programmed into one. But then its boring and esstiently a guided missile.

Inertia. Something big needs a great deal more power to change direction. Speed may be equal, but not manouevrability.

The fighter usefulness debate is only relevant in hard FT, which, quite frankly, is very boring.

The fighter usefulness debate is only relevant in hard FT, which, quite frankly, is very boring.

Thus we come to the Zeroth Law, manned, macho, 20 year old characters are much more interesting then unmanned missiles :)

Thus we come to the Zeroth Law, manned, macho, 20 year old characters are much more interesting then unmanned missiles :)

Basically. I like to read interesting RPs, and RPs where everyone just flies around giant ships with single laser beams as their only weapon which is perfect against any target is pretty much the opposite of interesting to me.

In hard FT, the only way fighters would exist is by being effectively unmanned "torpedo boats" anyone agree or disagree?

Basically. I like to read interesting RPs, and RPs where everyone just flies around giant ships with single laser beams as their only weapon which is perfect against any target is pretty much the opposite of interesting to me.
That's true, But I have been pondering this for the last few hours and Ive found that by even using "Hard" FT, you could still have a variety of weapons, defenses, ship classes, and the like.

In hard FT, the only way fighters would exist is by being effectively unmanned "torpedo boats" anyone agree or disagree?

Disagree.

Fighters are useful for many Mission profiles, such as.

Close Air Patrol.
Reconnaissance.
Escorts.
Strike Missions.
Sweeps.

Also no matter what PDS you use, fighters are still hard to hit.

Disagree.

Fighters are useful for many Mission profiles, such as.

Close Air Patrol. [ This would only be useful if fighters had the ability to hurt capital ships, which is reasonable by using nuclear weapons, I assume.]
Reconnaissance. [According to Hard SF, the Space Shuttles engines could be detected as far away as pluto, thus rendering that one moot.]
Escorts. [ This in nothing a frigate-class vessel cannot accomplish.]
Strike Missions. [ This is also unreasonable if you have FTL and can strike anywhere, at any time.]
Sweeps. [ Do you mean looking for a ship in an area? if so, point two denies this.

Mind you, this is only using Hard Sci Fi.I'm just trying to find an happy medium between hard science and a book or rp which would be pure science and thus boring.

Also no matter what PDS you use, fighters are still hard to hit.

This is true.

Pretty much, if you use don't bend actual science, it becomes more work than fun.

Or you can just adapt Actual Doctrines used by todays Military to FT and be done with it.

Like I said, its all about a happy medium ;)

Thrust. Weight. Inertia.

Thats the principles behind it. Now, if you want the actual math and or equations, wait for one of the geniuses to show up.

What I am still strugglin to understand is how say a ship that is 10,000 times larger than the Eiffel Tower can go as fast as a smaller ship that is only the size of the Eiffel Tower.

In hard FT, the only way fighters would exist is by being effectively unmanned "torpedo boats" anyone agree or disagree?

Quite frankly, that's total crap.

Just as in WWII and modern aircraft tactics, there will always be two basic strike craft types. Bombers and fighters. You will have heavier craft that truck missiles and torpedoes to attack enemy assets at close range, and you will have lighter craft designed to prevent the enemy craft from delivering their payloads. Of course, your enemy will deploy craft to defend their attacking craft, and so on and so forth.

Naturally, there are multiple subtypes of bombers and fighters for different roles, but as long as there is one type, the other will be close at hand.

I'm not FT, but I'll throw my 2 cents in.

Fighters are fun, so I would use them if I was FT.

Fighters have advantages, such as being small, cheap, and unlike a comparative missile, re-usable. They can swarm a target, so, instead of one or two ships, the enemy has to target one or two hundred of them.

However, unless you plan on dropping in from FTL right on top of your enemy, or fighting around a planet/moon or within an asteroid belt, then the fighters have to approach a target from far away and they'll be easy to spot, and by extension, destroy. It will take longer for them to get into effective range than it will for the target to open fire. And all that distance makes for an easy time picking off enemy fighters. The only weapons a fighter would carry to be effective against a capital ship would be torpedoes/missiles as its guns would be to small and weak to punch through armour. A capital ship's guns however, would be more than sufficient for blowing apart a fighter and so while the fighter could theoretically fire their guns at the same range as a capital ship, the guns won't do anything. The capital's guns will blow clean through the fighters.

In reference to TPF's last post, the larger ship can house a larger engine, which would grant it more speed in the gravity and resistance-free vacuum of space. The smaller vessel, however, will probably be able to accelerate faster. this tends to be the method of though, but let's go a little further.

The force required to accelerate an object is F=m*a, where F is the force, m is the mass, and a is the acceleration. In a vacuum such as space, common theory dictates that the forces of gravity and friction would not exist to count the larger ship's movement. However, the smaller vessel will still be able to accelerate faster since acceleration is directly proportional to the Force applied, and inversely proportional to the mass of the object. Also, the larger craft will be able to apply this force for longer thanks to additional heat dissipation and safeguards that are too large for fighters, allowing them more velocity under the equation V=a*t which results in V=t*F/m.

However, if you look at all these equations carefully, there will be a point where a ship can be too massive for an engine to generate the force capable of pushing it to speeds greater than those reached by fighters without making the engine tear itself apart in the process.

Also a note, on the torpedo boat/suicide ship thing: You're wanting to build fighter-sized ships. What would you rather do, build a wing of ships whose only purpose is simply throwing themselves at the enemy? Okay, Zerg, breed your damned scourges. However, if you infact have a limited budget and resources, wouldn't you prefer to make those fighters last a while? You know, something where every mission isn't a suicide run?

I do, however, believe this: The human pilot is obsolete in FT. Hell, human pilots are beginning to become the only limitations of today's fighters, much less what comes along in the future. Fighters, they still have a place. Human-piloted fighters? Maybe if you have a particularly godly tech level. Remote control/Advanced AI seems to be the way to go.

I'm not FT, but I'll throw my 2 cents in.

Fighters are fun, so I would use them if I was FT.

Fighters have advantages, such as being small, cheap, and unlike a comparative missile, re-usable. They can swarm a target, so, instead of one or two ships, the enemy has to target one or two hundred of them.

However, unless you plan on dropping in from FTL right on top of your enemy, or fighting around a planet/moon or within an asteroid belt, then the fighters have to approach a target from far away and they'll be easy to spot, and by extension, destroy. It will take longer for them to get into effective range than it will for the target to open fire. And all that distance makes for an easy time picking off enemy fighters. The only weapons a fighter would carry to be effective against a capital ship would be torpedoes/missiles as its guns would be to small and weak to punch through armour. A capital ship's guns however, would be more than sufficient for blowing apart a fighter and so while the fighter could theoretically fire their guns at the same range as a capital ship, the guns won't do anything. The capital's guns will blow clean through the fighters.

The reusable aspect is one of the most important advantages of strike craft. A given ship may be capable of carrying more missiles than it could strike craft, but the strike craft can be used for multiple missions. Missiles cannot.

Further, while strike craft are vulnerable at range, missiles are even moreso.

While on their own, a strike craft's normal weapons may not be able to match a ship's shot for shot, a strike craft's weapons will usually make up for that with rate of fire or heavier, externally mounted weapons. One of the best examples of this in the real world was the de Havilland Mosquito, which packed a 57mm cannon when equipped for anti-ship missions. Likewise, the Ju-87 Stuka was sometimes equipped with a pair of 37mm cannons in under-wing gunpods for anti-tank duty. I presume that had they been used in an anti-shipping role, they'd have done just as well as the Mosquito.

You're making a lot of assumptions with that argument.

In hard FT, the only way fighters would exist is by being effectively unmanned "torpedo boats" anyone agree or disagree?
Partially agree, but those torps could themselves be as powerful as an ICBM barrage and, given the inertia/delta-v (maybe) advantages of smaller craft a multi-vector attack would take far less maneuvering to arrange than with battleships or such. Plus high-veloicity railguns as wingroot/spinal weapons (yes "wingroot" b/c given what most mention about fighters/carriers being best used in planetary/lunar orbit or asteroids, which I agree with completely, at least re-entry capability for even "space" fighters so pilots can safely ditch seems only sensible), to handle other fighters trying to interfere (mostly with mulitple-submunition missiles of their own, these being "shotgun" versions of the ship-killing nukes/antimatters/whatever, with the railguns being for self-defense and planetary-attack duty).
Note that I'm not overly pessimistic or optimistic about AIs as pilots. If they're fully-developed sentients with a sense of ethics and person, they can knock themselves out; and I would do everything I could as a citizen to secure that right for them. But HAL or Terminator style "killing machines" strike me as a BAD IDEA when put in space fighters on their own with certified-WMDs underwing. Even if commanded by a human officer (the whole "star knight" thing, which I could seriously see happening as well; since the "Starfighter Legion" or such might take over from the cavalry/armor heritage well-enough if precision-strike, survivability and endurance capabilities for the fighters are good enough to handle the planetary-warfare environment), the odds of either betrayal on the AI's part or (more likely) abuse of the AIs by an immoral human commander strike me as simply too high. Let's keep the combat pilots as human as possible (counting recon and remote-strike UAVs), for as long as possible until the AIs have their own sense of self and morality (which as their creators, I believe would be our moral duty to give them as soon as we are capable of it); and can thus be trusted to fight with restraint and honor at our side, as equals rather than as slaves.

Okay, I tried typing this all out earlier, but the forums auto-logged me out and then denied that I ever posted.

Here are a few equations that we are messing with: F=m*a and V=a*t. m is mass, F is force, V is velocity, t is time, and a is acceleration. Rather basic stuff, right? Well, if neutonian physics still works in the vacuum of space.

Okay, time for some fun. The larger ships can have a larger engine, and thus generate more force. However, this requires more mass. a=F/m. Now, larger ships can also house heat dissipation, safeguardsd, and fuel to put the engine to full power longer than the smaller ships, allowing for the advantage from V=a*t, however this still runs into the mass problem from a=F/m.

Therefore, if you look at it, there is a limit where the ship's mass is just too much for the kind of performance being hypothesized here. That, and try to get something that huge through tight spaces. Pain in the neck. Fighter-sized craft, while smaller and thus not capable of carrying as much of everything, can generate greater acceleration, which is vital for maneuverability, while still being able get around the more out-of-the-way areas where, say, guerilla warfare-type attack forces would hide.

They can do things which a super dreadnought per se, cannot (i.e dog fight with other fighters).And why would a dreadnought have to dogfight with fighters? Point defence exists for a reason. And depending on the technology base, you can just as well ditch it, and simply crush the piddly little wannabe-spaceships with shields/ absurd gravity wells/ whatever.

Disagree.

Fighters are useful for many Mission profiles, such as.

Close Air Patrol.
Reconnaissance.
Escorts.
Strike Missions.
Sweeps.The first two can be dealt with by using a, oh... One-tonne probe. If that. Escorts tend to be unnecessary for interstellar travel (Far too many different FTL methods, and even if both sides happen to use the same, the majority of FTL methods tends not to allow combat-in-transit), and in the case of interplanetary transports, well...

The only way for a fighter to carry capship-damaging firepower is, well, missiles.

And you can carry them just as well on the transports themselves, and/ or use frigate-equivalents that'd carry the same ordnance while expending much less mass to do so. Also, sitting in a fighter cockpit for, what? ten hours is going to be uncomfortable. Now, compare that to a spacious frigate...

The same will apply to the majority of strike missions.

And sweeps, well, I figure above points cover that as well.

What I am still strugglin to understand is how say a ship that is 10,000 times larger than the Eiffel Tower can go as fast as a smaller ship that is only the size of the Eiffel Tower.By accelerating. And amazingly, if it dedicates the same percentage of its volume to engine the fighter does, it can accelerate just as fast.

Fighters have advantages, such as being small, cheap, and unlike a comparative missile, re-usable.Bold by me

That depends. To be reusable, it'll have to return. Returning means, in any and all cases, energy expenditure. If you're using reactiondrives, you'll also have to carry extra reaction mass to return.

This means two things.

The fighter will have less range than the missile, because it needs to save half its fuel to return
The fighter will be slower than the missile, because it will inherently and unavoidably have less of its mass dedicated to, well, engine

Remains to add that the only way the fighter can hope to damage a capship is to fire, well, missiles at it (And the absolute minimum yield here is something in the petajoule range, with enough oomph in its propulsion to play catch-up. As in, ICBMs would be small) - the end result is that you simply expend vastly more resources on hitting a target than you have to.

On a side note, missiles are (IRL) far, far cheaper than fighters - at present (Taurus KPD 350 vs. Eurofighter), they cost about 1% of what a fighter costs.

And that's just material + manufacturing, and not including maintenance, personnel training, you name it.

Now, this doesn't have to be as extreme in spacedy combat - the missiles are no longer attacking low-moblity targets, and will thus have to dedicate much more volume to engine, which raises costs quite considerably -, but the basic problem will remain. Worse so for fighters with pilots than for unmanned drone craft (Keeping up life support == expensive. Oh, and reducing combat capabilities, as more mass going into life support equals less mass for engines & weapons).

Now, for the theory. For all practical intends and purposes, I'll call everything that's small and agile & has guns rather than warheads a 'Fighter' - whether it's AI-controlled or manned just changes some bits about its performance, but not the underlying principles.

Both, fighter and capship are using the same medium. All velocity advantages fighters have IRL against wet ships are therefore unextant. Arguments about bringing inertial dampeners & the likes online are irrelevant - they'd only apply if both craft had similar-sized ones. This is unlikely, unless you dedicate your technology base to make it so. Problem is, not everyone does
The capship, by virtue of being bigger, can carry more weapons, armour and - if the technology base allows for it - shields. Fighters will have to use missiles to break through
The missiles can do this on their own. Not using fighters means that you can use more volume (On your capship) to store missiles, means either bigger or more (Or both) missiles - either is an advantage
The fighters will inherently be outperformed by the missiles - the missiles can dedicate more space to either warhead or engine, and life support's expensive (AI helps a little, but cannot equal the missile). They'll be cheaper, faster, and more destructive. And have greater range. This means the fighter is both, easier to intercept and more expensive to lose.
If you happen to be anal about sapient casualties, the advantage of an unmanned missile are kinda obvious
All the missions fighters (And equiv-size planes) in general are used for IRL - reconnaissance comes to mind - can be done equally well by, well, probes, at a fraction of the costs and risk associated with such missions

Conclusion: The value of a fighter as a primary combatant is approaching zero.

Now, what roles could a 'Fighter' (I use the term loosely - they'd be rather different from RL ones) - regardless of whether it's manned or equivalent to an autonomous UACV - still have?

Fighters, although incapable of effectively hurting capships, should have enough punch to break through missiles. Consider them a means to increase the range of your point defence
If you happen to like not cracking continents and eradicating all life from the planets you may conquer, a means to enforce aerospace superiority in sub-orbital altitudes is nifty. Particularly when your spaceships' PD guns have issues with penetrating an atmosphere ('Realistic' ones, I.e. high-frequency lasers & particle beams, do). Unless your shield-technology is seriously twinky, anyway

Conclusion: 'Fighters' resume having an interceptor-esque role - not a big one, but still. Indeed, given that the other side will likely want to protect its missiles from 'Mobile Point Defence', it'll probably shepherd its missiles with something that deals with your 'Fighters'. And thus give you a good chance to still have manly and testostere-loaded fighter vs. fighter battles (Though, dogfighting remains exceedingly unlikely). Just, for the love of god - human neurons transmit information at about 200 m/s. At velocities somewhere between 3 & 30000 km/s, a baseline human is absurdly unlikely to score a hit. Use either swarm tactics with centrally coordinated firing vectors, or AI (Not sapient AI. Just... A numbercrunching algorithm).

Ideally, use both.

Ok not true Der Angst, Sorry to say this but a missile carrying a few kilo's of compressed antimatter will hurt, and though it may not be as big as a cap ship missile, by say stripping out alot of fuel and sensors and the like to make its way to target it could be fitted on to fighters. In some cases...lots of them could be fitted to fighters, though that would be dangerous. As for grav shields crushing fighters, thats all and good if thats your PD, but this is FT, fighters may have antigrav that stops that, or the amount of fighters could stop that.

So if you have one hundred fighter craft, each with say 100 essentially deployed C fracs or C fracs filled with antimatter, then you have one hundred times one hundred anti ship weapons striking a target. A 20 pound weight at high speeds hurts alot, and hits easier as it is deployed closer. A 20 pound weight with a few pounds of antimatter in it deployed at high speeds from a fighter craft that is far closer to a cap ship, will hurt a lot.

So ten thousand anti ship missiles, that though not as powerful as cap ship sized ones, are much cheaper and more readily available..and much, much more likely to strike a ship as they are deployed so close. PD can kill a bunch but your PD is looking for missiles the size of fighters and fighters, sure you can tune it down but these things are going half to two thirds C. Now you have just been struck by the equivalent of four thousand standard ship cannons for instance. I dont know about you but four thousand or so hits would kill just about any ship I have.

Fighters, just like in RL can only get deadlier. The bigger weapons are fired from farther away, this is true. They carry more charge, this is true. They have much more sophisticated sensors, this is true. But the fighter can carry dozens of AS missiles or kinetic darts for instance. These two hundred KG darts, though unguided, deployed by a fighter moving half the speed of light have just become very cheap and very effective C fracs.

So knowing that the enemy has tens of thousands of fighters supplementing his fleet, and that you have all these lovely defenses you have to figure that if even a quarter of the fire of the enemy fighters gets through...you will likely die if you cant counter them.


Der Angst you do use fighters in interception, though you dont use them in strike I know this. Interception is the least duty they should have. Become some people are going to think a little differently of fighters. I for one do as well, my fleets short ranged fighting power is based almost entirely on fighters. I dont care what someone tries to argue, RP wise they are as effective as anyones short range slugging death barges of d00m in quantity. My attack frigate, for instance is a one man 70 meter space only fighter that can deploy frigate sized weapons and a limited quantity of frigate sized missiles, as well as fighter missiles and weapons. It cant take a hit like a Frigate can, but it can avoid them.

Thats the advantage of the space fighters. Aside from heavy bombardment from strategic grasers, you cant really kill them with big ship guns, considering that people dont just toss fighter defenses out the window if they use them in FT. I for instance make sure my fighters are "hard" to hit for PD fire as well as big guns, with tech and story. Because the truth is as technology advances in one area, other areas will move up to match it.

The idea that a big ship can accelerate just as fast is true. But it cant maneuver as easily. A fighter can line itself up very quickly with a spinal cannon or heavy missile. A ship cannot and needs to be at range for that. Fighters add to your close range power. Wing commander is a good example. Ship torps can fire from...much, much farther away then yours can even lock on. However the fighter launch torpedos pack alot of force, and seven or eight of them, as opposed to three or four of the big ones, could take down ships. Its an eternal arms race, those that believe in the power of fighters will have done things to them to make them powerful, those that do not will not.

Its future tech, with all sorts of advanced technologies to choose from, there is a way for just about anything to be possible. Especially effective space fighters. As for hard FT, well thats a different story and you could still see fighters, though they wouldnt look like any traditional fighter out there..however the truth is in hard FT, those ships that can move like a fighter can still need to accomadate the millions of tons of steel, compared to the 25-100 tons of it. The fact is that it will likely be easier [as it is now] to build high end fighter engines that produce that kind of thrust and maneuverability, then it would be to make that same cap ship that way. However in Star Lancer, cap ships could out run fighters in full burn. Also in hard science, fighters could use very powerful ECM and simply carry a bunch of KK darts to slam in to the sides of ships like a dive bomber. At least if Hard sci fi is all real physics [aside from say FTL] without antigravity or anything else.

Ok not true Der Angst, Sorry to say this but a missile carrying a few kilo's of compressed antimatter will hurt, and though it may not be as big as a cap ship missile, by say stripping out alot of fuel and sensors and the like to make its way to target it could be fitted on to fighters. In some cases...lots of them could be fitted to fighters, though that would be dangerous. As for grav shields crushing fighters, thats all and good if thats your PD, but this is FT, fighters may have antigrav that stops that, or the amount of fighters could stop that.


By stripping out fuel and sensors your missile would have a much harder time getting to the target. Might want to think about that. And it all depends on the type of wank you use, regarding the shielding crushing fighters.

So if you have one hundred fighter craft, each with say 100 essentially deployed C fracs or C fracs filled with antimatter, then you have one hundred times one hundred anti ship weapons striking a target. A 20 pound weight at high speeds hurts alot, and hits easier as it is deployed closer. A 20 pound weight with a few pounds of antimatter in it deployed at high speeds from a fighter craft that is far closer to a cap ship, will hurt a lot.

Why would you put antimatter in cfracs? A solid chunk of metal would do readily more damage at .5c than the antimatter ever will. You're also still disregarding the fact that the capital ship and it's escorts (and, given parity, it's 'fighter-point-defense' jobs) will be shooting at you this entire time.


So ten thousand anti ship missiles, that though not as powerful as cap ship sized ones, are much cheaper and more readily available..and much, much more likely to strike a ship as they are deployed so close. PD can kill a bunch but your PD is looking for missiles the size of fighters and fighters, sure you can tune it down but these things are going half to two thirds C. Now you have just been struck by the equivalent of four thousand standard ship cannons for instance. I dont know about you but four thousand or so hits would kill just about any ship I have.

Didn't you just yank the fuel and sensors out of these anti-ship missiles? I would, you know, move if I saw 10,000 ASMs moving towards my ship that didn't appear to be able to maneuver. Also, with less fuel, your missile will not be able to accelerate to half or 2/3 C that quickly, giving me more time to move out of the way/shoot them down etc.

Do you see what I'm getting at? A frigate analog with large anti-ship missiles would have FAR more survivability than a fighter with small anti-ship missiles.

Fighters, just like in RL can only get deadlier. The bigger weapons are fired from farther away, this is true. They carry more charge, this is true. They have much more sophisticated sensors, this is true. But the fighter can carry dozens of AS missiles or kinetic darts for instance. These two hundred KG darts, though unguided, deployed by a fighter moving half the speed of light have just become very cheap and very effective C fracs.
No, fighters do not get deadlier. In fact, they sorta become laughable in grand-scale FT warfare. ESPECIALLY if one is using manned flight - that's begging for massive casualties just trying to get close enough to fire, and given FT targetting wank, a ship could shoot the coffee cup out of my hand from a light-second away. So what makes you think a fighter has a better chance of getting close enough to fire than a larger, better armoured frigate?

Many people also have capital guns with adjustable beamspread, so they can go, "Hmm, Captain, there's an enemy fighter swarm coming at us." and fry all of them in a given sector.

So knowing that the enemy has tens of thousands of fighters supplementing his fleet, and that you have all these lovely defenses you have to figure that if even a quarter of the fire of the enemy fighters gets through...you will likely die if you cant counter them.

If you're using manned fighters, you would have many tens of thousands of deaths more than you would without manned fighters. And I would assume, given good tactics/relatively equal wank, that very little fire from any 'fighters' would get through, given the absurd numbers of ships, point-defense, 'fighters', shielding, etc. I use fighters strictly as a missile-interceptor, and even then I'm phasing it out of that role in favour of better point-defense.

Der Angst you do use fighters in interception, though you dont use them in strike I know this. Interception is the least duty they should have. Become some people are going to think a little differently of fighters. I for one do as well, my fleets short ranged fighting power is based almost entirely on fighters. I dont care what someone tries to argue, RP wise they are as effective as anyones short range slugging death barges of d00m in quantity. My attack frigate, for instance is a one man 70 meter space only fighter that can deploy frigate sized weapons and a limited quantity of frigate sized missiles, as well as fighter missiles and weapons. It cant take a hit like a Frigate can, but it can avoid them.


So you're redefining 'fighter' now? That is a frigate, albeit a small one, not a fighter. And even then, I'd rather have an AI 70 meter frigate than a manned one.


Thats the advantage of the space fighters. Aside from heavy bombardment from strategic grasers, you cant really kill them with big ship guns, considering that people dont just toss fighter defenses out the window if they use them in FT. I for instance make sure my fighters are "hard" to hit for PD fire as well as big guns, with tech and story. Because the truth is as technology advances in one area, other areas will move up to match it.

But you are disregarding NS wank, where tech bases are generally not the same. As I noted earlier, some people's PD can hit the coffee cup in my hand, what makes you think it wouldn't be able to hit your relatively slowly acclerating fighter?


The idea that a big ship can accelerate just as fast is true. But it cant maneuver as easily. A fighter can line itself up very quickly with a spinal cannon or heavy missile. A ship cannot and needs to be at range for that. Fighters add to your close range power. Wing commander is a good example. Ship torps can fire from...much, much farther away then yours can even lock on. However the fighter launch torpedos pack alot of force, and seven or eight of them, as opposed to three or four of the big ones, could take down ships. Its an eternal arms race, those that believe in the power of fighters will have done things to them to make them powerful, those that do not will not.

You'd have to get into laughably close range. You'd also, if you use manned fighters, have to get the fighter BACK without getting DEATed by an opposing fighter, PD cannon, etc. You'd also either have to dedicate twice as much reaction mass/fuel to get the same range, or half the combat range, etc. Do you see what I'm getting at? Fighters are too small to have any serious sorts of armour, fuel capacity, or even particularly big guns. The ONLY use I can see them for is the 'shepherd' role that Der Angst used, and I wouldn't used manned jobs for that anyway, the casualty rate would be horrifying.

Its future tech, with all sorts of advanced technologies to choose from, there is a way for just about anything to be possible. Especially effective space fighters. As for hard FT, well thats a different story and you could still see fighters, though they wouldnt look like any traditional fighter out there..however the truth is in hard FT, those ships that can move like a fighter can still need to accomadate the millions of tons of steel, compared to the 25-100 tons of it. The fact is that it will likely be easier [as it is now] to build high end fighter engines that produce that kind of thrust and maneuverability, then it would be to make that same cap ship that way. However in Star Lancer, cap ships could out run fighters in full burn. Also in hard science, fighters could use very powerful ECM and simply carry a bunch of KK darts to slam in to the sides of ships like a dive bomber. At least if Hard sci fi is all real physics [aside from say FTL] without antigravity or anything else.

Star Lancer =/= hard FT. Combat took place at laughably close ranges, and other stuff like that that I'm too lazy to go over in detail right now. And it doesn't matter how much mass the engines need to accomadate, as long as the same engine volume (and relative engine ability for that volume) is there, the cap ship can move like a fighter.

And compare the ECM resources of a fighter vs. a capital ship. It won't work, will it? And you're wasting valuable volume for ECM that probably won't work when you could put a little more armour, a little more engine, more arms, etc, anything that can increase the already scant survivability.

Simple argument of fun vs. win.

Are you playing to win, or are you playing to have a good RP?

If you're merely playing to become "the victor", than you probaly wouldn't use fighters. Sure, they can send out a whole helluva lot of torpedoes at one time (capital-grade torpedoes or missiles, even, as demonstrated just as well in MT), but a capital ship could just spam with guns.

However, fighters are interesting and fun to play with. It's fun to control your sub-units, to drive them as integral parts against enemy combatants in battles certainly more exhilirating than simply squaring off capital ships and letting fly with full broadsides over and over again.

I'm not going to back any of my points here with physics-I can't stand the subject, and it ruins the point of RPs to me-but as a point of making the stories more interesting to read and be a part of, fighters surely still have a spot.

What the hell, I'm responding to The Phoenix Milita, and my post came first?!?! This is something new...

just jolt servers

Ok not true Der Angst, Sorry to say this but a missile carrying a few kilo's of compressed antimatter will hurtYes. Particularly the fighter (Swarm) when one of 'em is hit...

But hey, if suicide and 99.9% loss ratios are your thing, go ahead.

As for grav shields crushing fighters, thats all and good if thats your PD, but this is FT, fighters may have antigrav that stops that, or the amount of fighters could stop that.Ship big. Fighter small. Fighter overpowered. Welcome to very, very fine dust land.

Incidentally, why would they have to be grav shields (Which are stupid, anyway. Gravity has only an attractive, not a repulsive force, damnit. And shields that accelerate incoming projectiles strike me as a decidedly dumb idea)? Any shields that interact with mass & don't hug hulls will do.

So if you have one hundred fighter craft, each with say 100 essentially deployed C fracs or C fracs filled with antimatter, then you have one hundred times one hundred anti ship weapons striking a target. A 20 pound weight at high speeds hurts alot, and hits easier as it is deployed closer. A 20 pound weight with a few pounds of antimatter in it deployed at high speeds from a fighter craft that is far closer to a cap ship, will hurt a lot.Irrelevant. Exactly the same is true for a capship launching the missiles. Except that it can launch more missiles (As it doesn't carry fighters). And they'll hit with exactly the same accuracy as fighter-carried missiles, because, well, to put it simple...

Missile == one-stage rocket

Fighter carrying missiles == two-stage rocket with cluster munitions.

You're adding a pointless, maintenance- and training-heavy additional stage to a weapon. Without there being a need for it. Missiles can maneuver, too, you know. And fuel is of relatively little concern - contrary to SciFi in the movies, constant thrust isn't required to achive constant velocity.

So ten thousand anti ship missiles, that though not as powerful as cap ship sized ones, are much cheaper and more readily available..and much, much more likely to strike a ship as they are deployed so close.But they could be deployed from much farther away (Read: without fighter assitance, simply by the capship in question) and feature the exact same degree of accuracy...

PD can kill a bunch but your PD is looking for missiles the size of fighters and fighters, sure you can tune it down but these things are going half to two thirds C.No. It's looking for everything that has the Mass and/ or velocity (Optional: Physical characteristics) to hurt me.

A .5c missile, probably with AM warhead, tends to qualify, and thus to be targetted.

Now you have just been struck by the equivalent of four thousand standard ship cannons for instance. I dont know about you but four thousand or so hits would kill just about any ship I have.No, I wouldn't have been - if the missiles (Or fighters) can accelerate this hard, they'll have to feature absurd energy densities. This means that the (Larger) reactors powering any capship weaponry will be even more powerful, unless of course, you mount nothing but point defence, or use reactors at least an order of magnitude less powerful (Per cubicmetre) to power your main guns.

Both of which I doubt.

Add to this that

Only a fraction of your fighters would make it
Only a fraction of the missiles they launch would make it and things look mightily different.

These two hundred KG darts, though unguided, deployed by a fighter moving half the speed of light have just become very cheap and very effective C fracs.Again, they could just as easily be deployed by the ship itself. Actually, they could be deployed better - there is no maximum range for kinetic projectiles in space. Their time on target (Counting from the initial launch by the ship) will be identical, regardless of whether they're launched by the ship or by fighters launched by the ship. But fighters tend to be easier to intercept than kinetics - a bit of damage, or blinding them is perfectly sufficient. The projectile you have to vaporize and hope the cloud of molecules you've created dissipates sufficiently before impact.

Do you have a fetish with adding unnecessary stages to your offensive weaponry? I mean, it costs you in mass, in casualties, in basically everything...

But hey, if you like it, sure.

So knowing that the enemy has tens of thousands of fighters supplementing his fleet, and that you have all these lovely defenses you have to figure that if even a quarter of the fire of the enemy fighters gets through...you will likely die if you cant counter them.Assuming that me and the other side feature equivalent mass fleets, I'll rejoice, because my superiority in terms of missiles and simple direct-fire weapons would be positively absurd.

Lets see... I'll be able to accelerate just as fast as the fighters (Roughly - certainly within the same order of magnitude). I can therefore keep the distance between them and me equal. I can then use the superior range of c-weaponry to fry 'em. In the meantime, missiles cook the enemy's main combatants.

Yep. Slaughter.

Practically speaking, you'd be trying to take on the forces present at Jutland with a bunch of paddle boats. Granted, each of these paddle boats might've a 30.5cm grenade on board, and could be a threat if detonating nearby, but...

I dont care what someone tries to argue, RP wise they are as effective as anyones short range slugging death barges of d00m in quantity.And there we have it again. "I don't like to think rationally about my stuff and you MUST ACCEPT THAT IT IS EQUAL! BECAUSE I SAY SO!" I seem to recall you trying to use a 40km/ diameter (Or something like that) laser to shoot missiles some tens of million kilometres away, en masse, despite the beam being only able to cover a mere 0.00000000005% of the area the missiles were in at a time.

In a scenario where both sides had FTL sensor feed.

Because the beam could be 'Swept'.

Well, it was funny seeing you bitch at me for taking exactly zero losses from that, and I suppose that I'm getting used to it (Considering how calm I am right now... yeah, looks like it). But it doesn't make it right. If you refuse to think things through, that's your problem. Not that of the people you're interacting with.

Thats the advantage of the space fighters. Aside from heavy bombardment from strategic grasers, you cant really kill them with big ship gunsWhy not? Area effect radiation (As in, 'OMG IT VAPORISES ME!') from a heavy missile kills 'em for good, so does a capship turret firing at high beamspread.

[...] Its future tech, with all sorts of advanced technologies to choose from, there is a way for just about anything to be possible.What exactly are you arguing against? I didn't say it's impossible to use space fighters. I'm saying it's ineffective.

It's also possible to use wind power to propel aircraft carriers - this doesn't mean it's efficient. And the basic problems of fighters - limited range, mass-costs, costs in general, yields - are inherent to them, they wont go away just because you wave a magic wand at them, because you could just as well wave the magic wand at missiles.

And the question of whether or not you like to RP with fighters, regardless of these problems, is quite completely irrelevant in this context, seeing as it strikes me as more of a technical discussion than a 'What I like to RP' thread. And frankly, if you've to drop back to 'But I LIKE to play this way and just assume it is equal!' rather than using any rational (And more-or-less provable, 's far as we can do this) arguments, you've already conceded the point by saying, in effect, 'Yeah, yeah, alright. But I don't care.'

After all, whether you like it or not isn't the subject. Personally, I happen to like Space Battleship Yamato - but you wont find me arguing that the shipdesign makes sense.

I agree with most being said here. In a Hard FT context, fighters would be ineffective because they couldn't get in range of firing their capital-ship killers before PD knocks them out. I agree with this. Even in Hard FT, the PD and massive Capital ships cannons could destroy them. The only way to "overcome" this is by:
1. Having longer ranged missiles, like a cruise missile, but then that would better be used to buy a frigate which is tougher and can use and hold many more missiles.
2. Use, literally, thousands of AI-controlled fighters to Swarm an enemy. But then, that is nothing you can do with missiles. The only thing is that a single fighter could have thirty-six missiles, but then once-again, just purchase a frigate that has a ton of missiles on board.

One thing I see that may be used however is a "Fast" ship that is designed to deliver weapons and then get the heck out of dodge. However I still believe this ship would still be at least like a Frigate in size, a la a " Fast Frigate" which is one of my FT ship classes.

In the non hard FT context, you could actually use fighters with microwarpdrives to appear in the middle of an enemy fleet. Then again, missiles could do the same.

Even in RL some people are starting to question manned fighters, especially, because of the effectiveness of missiles. This can be overcome by cheap and unmanned aircraft. Also, some people believe carriers are obsolete, because they say that if you produced destroyers specially designed for the Anti-Aircraft role, that they would be accurate enough and have enough missiles to take out a Carrier's strike group at long range. I see their point, but I am not sure if this is true or not.

Wow... looks like my earlier post somehow made it through with a delay. Damn these forums.

Just a few notes:
1: Say what you will, point defense systems and capital ship main guns have limits that some people aren't taking into account. At long range, space is a very big place and when you're firing at something far away, your target is very small, and god hep you if you're trying to shoot a fighter from that range. Sure, you might hit them a few times before they get close enough to return effective fire, but even a slight error in your gun's angle would result in the shot, and that range, maybe even missing by kilometers.

2: Point defenses, like the turrets on bombers, are a good idea in theory, but in use the limitations become obvious. There's a limit to how many of these you can stash on a single ship and still have the ammo (if needed), power, and other such systems leading to them that you need. Then there's a problem with the fact that point defenses are normally fixed. There's a bad situation that occurs when little fighters are out-maneuvering your ship and staying mostly behind the engines, where coverage tends to be lower, or actually (gasp) attacking your turrets. Has anyone here played Freespace or Freespace 2? You know what I mean when a cap-ship is sitting there, stripped of it's turrets due to fighter/bomber assaults. All the point defenses did was slow the fighters down a little bit.

Well, it depends. If we're dealing with 'hard' sci-fi, with only the minimal amount of physics-breaking required (Say, FTL drives that require a specific area in space to utilize - and can only go to another, designated space), then yes. They're obsolete as all hell.

If we're dealing with soft sci-fi.. not really, not really at all. Then again, putting a man on a pogo stick with a helmet on isn't obsolete - provided that you can come up with some random handwavium to explain it. To be honest, you can't argue soft sci-fi, unless we're all operating under the same set of assumptions and rules. Which we aren't.

In hard sci-fi, yes. They're obsolete for any combat involving ships larger than them. The simple fact is that, firstly and foremost, a capship will have longer range, assuming the same ratios of engines, weaponry, and other components of a ship. Secondly, the lack of friction in space (or virtual lack of friction, there are tiny particles flying around out there, but not enough to make a rat's difference in combat) means that, effectively, these two sets of ships will be flying in at the same speed.

So, let's assume this to be mostly hard science, here. Newtonian acceleration, and whatnot.


1: Say what you will, point defense systems and capital ship main guns have limits that some people aren't taking into account. At long range, space is a very big place and when you're firing at something far away, your target is very small, and god hep you if you're trying to shoot a fighter from that range. Sure, you might hit them a few times before they get close enough to return effective fire, but even a slight error in your gun's angle would result in the shot, and that range, maybe even missing by kilometers.

Right. But it doesn't matter. Because my capship can effectively move as quickly as your fighter - a = f/m (or f = m*a, whichever way you want to put it). Therefore, if we've got equivalent sets of engines, I'll be able to keep in effective range, and your fighters won't be able to.

Let's put this in naval terms. A battleship versus a destroyer. Except the battleship can move as quickly as the destroyer can, and that ammo is unlimited. Let's say we have a hundred destroyers versus this one battleship. It may take time, but eventually the battleship will annihilate the entire fleet. Of course, a better analogy would be a battleship versus motorboats with machineguns attached.

2: Point defenses, like the turrets on bombers, are a good idea in theory, but in use the limitations become obvious.

Right. You can't use them to crack open enemy capships. Luckily, you don't use them to do that. Limitations solved.

There's a limit to how many of these you can stash on a single ship and still have the ammo (if needed), power, and other such systems leading to them that you need.

Yup. There's also a limit to, say, how many fighters you can produce.

Then there's a problem with the fact that point defenses are normally fixed.

Only if you're some kind of half-braindead moron. I'm not sure what kind of fairy world you're living in, but let me assure you, I'm not in there with you.

There's a bad situation that occurs when little fighters are out-maneuvering your ship and staying mostly behind the engines, where coverage tends to be lower, or actually (gasp) attacking your turrets.

Right. Would you care to mention how the fighters got within a few lightseconds of my ship first? If fighters are engaging at that point, I'm guessing my captain had a drunken bet with the first mate that he could defeat the enemy fleet without opening fire.

Has anyone here played Freespace or Freespace 2? You know what I mean when a cap-ship is sitting there, stripped of it's turrets due to fighter/bomber assaults. All the point defenses did was slow the fighters down a little bit.

...yeah. That just completely discredited everything you just said. If you're basing your examples on a video game, maybe it's time to go and grab a physics textbook. Hell, even Wikipedia has some decent resources on the matter. Out of curiosity, have you ever played Real Life? It's a game where a strange set of laws, known as 'physics', apply.

And let's be honest - if we can engage at twenty centimetres, and warp our fighters outside of enemy ships, why don't we just throw c-frac weaponry into, say, their reactor? Even if we have FTL that can be used in combat effectively, fighters are STILL inefficient.

Right. But it doesn't matter. Because my capship can effectively move as quickly as your fighter - a = f/m (or f = m*a, whichever way you want to put it). Therefore, if we've got equivalent sets of engines, I'll be able to keep in effective range, and your fighters won't be able to.

Unfortunately, if you're packing the engines on your battleship to accelerate like a fighter, your battleship will be easy prey to a less engine oriented warship with a heavier armament.

You're also forgetting that a fighter launched from a ship in space will share the launching ship's velocity before the increase from the ship's catapults and the fighter's engines. Assuming two ships with equal velocities, the fighters should have no problem catching the battleship.

Let's put this in naval terms. A battleship versus a destroyer. Except the battleship can move as quickly as the destroyer can, and that ammo is unlimited. Let's say we have a hundred destroyers versus this one battleship. It may take time, but eventually the battleship will annihilate the entire fleet. Of course, a better analogy would be a battleship versus motorboats with machineguns attached.

That's quite a fitting analogy there. You see, the destroyer was originally created as a small, fast ship designed to destroy torpedo boats. Back in the day, torpedo boats were one of the biggest threats to battleships. While they didn't damage the battleships with their token batteries of guns, they were more than capable of sinking them with their torpedoes, which is how a spacedy attack fighter would fight. Sure, the torpedo boats will be vulnerable to point defense guns, but the loss of a few torpedo boats is nothing compare to the loss of a battleship.

Yup. There's also a limit to, say, how many fighters you can produce.

There's also a limit to how many missiles you can produce, and fighters tend to survive missions far more often than missiles.

Right. Would you care to mention how the fighters got within a few lightseconds of my ship first? If fighters are engaging at that point, I'm guessing my captain had a drunken bet with the first mate that he could defeat the enemy fleet without opening fire.

Perhaps my capital ships were distracting you with support fire or a preliminary missile barrage. Either way, if you're busy dealing with my fighters and my ships don't have the same problem, you're at a serious disadvantage.

Out of curiosity, have you ever played Real Life? It's a game where a strange set of laws, known as 'physics', apply.

I hate that game. The playerbase is horrible and the GMs and devs never respond.

Okay, I tried typing this all out earlier, but the forums auto-logged me out and then denied that I ever posted.

Here are a few equations that we are messing with: F=m*a and V=a*t. m is mass, F is force, V is velocity, t is time, and a is acceleration. Rather basic stuff, right? Well, if neutonian physics still works in the vacuum of space.

Okay, time for some fun. The larger ships can have a larger engine, and thus generate more force. However, this requires more mass. a=F/m. Now, larger ships can also house heat dissipation, safeguardsd, and fuel to put the engine to full power longer than the smaller ships, allowing for the advantage from V=a*t, however this still runs into the mass problem from a=F/m.

Therefore, if you look at it, there is a limit where the ship's mass is just too much for the kind of performance being hypothesized here. That, and try to get something that huge through tight spaces. Pain in the neck. Fighter-sized craft, while smaller and thus not capable of carrying as much of everything, can generate greater acceleration, which is vital for maneuverability, while still being able get around the more out-of-the-way areas where, say, guerilla warfare-type attack forces would hide.

Quoted because I don't feel like repeating that I do know my fair share of physics. My previous post was focused more on tactics, which I admit are not my strength. However, you seem to assume that I'm a total idiot, and that is not the case.

Many of your responsess to things I say blatantly insult me without any thought at all about what I said. Thank you for that. Maybe I didn't explain clearly enough.

Point defenses are normally turrets, and are positioned in fixed locations. They can rotate in order to track targets and such, but they don't move about the surface of a craft. I guess you misunderstood me when I tried to say this before. I apologize.

Your ships would have to ACCELERATE to reach the same speed as the fighter, and also accelerate in any direction taken by the smaller craft. Keep in mind that force is a vector quantity. I believe that I went over the equations involving this in the post I just quoted. I guess you missed this. I'm sorry for that to have happened.

I'm sorry that you seem to have decided that my being new to the forums is a reason to respond to my statements like I am some kind of "half-braindead moron", and I used the game reference to try to better illustrate what I was trying to explain. You did not have to take the tones that you did to counter my statements, yet you did and ended up making me almost sink to using similar insults.

Thank you.

Unfortunately, if you're packing the engines on your battleship to accelerate like a fighter, your battleship will be easy prey to a less engine oriented warship with a heavier armament.

Admittedly, yes. But the simple matter of the fact is then I don't even need to engage enemy ships -

You're also forgetting that a fighter launched from a ship in space will share the launching ship's velocity before the increase from the ship's catapults and the fighter's engines. Assuming two ships with equal velocities, the fighters should have no problem catching the battleship.[/quote]

Ah, yes. These ships with equal velocities - are these the same 'less-engine orientated warships with heavier armaments'? You can't have it both ways, I'm afraid.

That's quite a fitting analogy there. You see, the destroyer was originally created as a small, fast ship designed to destroy torpedo boats. Back in the day, torpedo boats were one of the biggest threats to battleships.

Of course. The problem here is that we're dealing with battleships with pinpoint accuracy, who'll hit these torpedo boats 99 times out of a hundred. And that have enough armament to aim for every one of them.

While they didn't damage the battleships with their token batteries of guns, they were more than capable of sinking them with their torpedoes, which is how a spacedy attack fighter would fight. Sure, the torpedo boats will be vulnerable to point defense guns, but the loss of a few torpedo boats is nothing compare to the loss of a battleship.

And this is where the analogy begins to fall apart. Because these torpedo boats can only be armed with men with rifles aboard - not torpedoes. A bomber, by comparison, might have a sniper-rifle.

There's also a limit to how many missiles you can produce, and fighters tend to survive missions far more often than missiles.

So? My missiles are going to do a lot more. Let's say that, on a victorious mission, 15% of all the fighters survive. A bit of a generous estimate, admittedly, but still almost reasonable. On a non-successful one, they all die.

Now, let's compare this to missiles. On a successful mission, 0% of my missiles survive. On a non-successful one, 0% of my missiles survive. So, the question is, are missiles more than 1.15 times better than fighters for their cost?

Perhaps my capital ships were distracting you with support fire or a preliminary missile barrage. Either way, if you're busy dealing with my fighters and my ships don't have the same problem, you're at a serious disadvantage.

Not really. Because, due to the resource you spent on those fighters, you have less ships. Therefore, my extra ships simply decimate those fighters, and go on to use superior firepower to win the battle with relative ease. Fighters aren't free.

My points for soft sci fi, such as tech advancing parrallel still completely stand. Now considering that this is FT sci fi, [and yes the fighters carrying tons of 2kg AM missiles are fragile thanks to them.] mostly played here in NS, then you can also consider that my statements on having all these little fighters doing this and that and the next thing is completely possible. The question was are they obsolete in FT. FT as we know it here, no fighter craft are not obsolete.

As for hard sci fi..who even knows how we are going to build this stuff, its all almost complete theory at the moment, sure we have the physical models, but we wont really know till we start building these massive fusion engines and whatnot. Either way the main argument was not are fighters dead in hard FT, but are they dead in sci fi. The answer as to the answer to anything else in this is no, they arent. Some nations put more in their ships, others more in fighters, more in to their defensive systems or strategic arsenals.

Its science fiction, lets all remember that fiction isnt real, and it doesnt have to follow real life.

However I would like a hard science answer on how a big ship is going to hit a small ship just as easily just because of the lack of cover. Remember modern fleet combat has little to no cover. Ships still miss each other and air craft coming at them. Why would there not be ECM or other technology like chaff, or simply moving out of the way that makes it like modern. Lasers may be doom to fighter planes, but space there is enough distance to miss with those lasers. Also in hard sci fi one has to remember that you dont have FTL sensors usually.

If the little ecm cloaked hard science fighter comes in to less then 1 light second and deploys, it is going to be more accurate during missile deployment then something 40 light seconds away firing at a blinking shadow, a calculation of where it could be based on its vectors...a guess. So how is that just as accurate? Just curious not trying to be rude on this, but I always assumed hard science didnt have FTL sensors, which meant you had to fight within real time ranges to be really accurate. Everything else is just guess work otherwise yes? If that is the case then wouldnt the small, much harder to detect KK dart launching fighter craft have much more accuracy. True the ship fires essentially a ship killing drone..but the basic attack, the basic "contact with enemy" and subsequent firing at them would be pretty much a guess, yes?

In this case the little humble fighter could redirect its course if they were wrong, where the missile may have too little fuel to alter their course if they were wrong. After all missiles shouldnt be ten to fifteen meters long if they dont want to be shot down. I dont know too much about the hard science aspect beyond how things move in space. I havent put much research in to it aside from a few books dealing with spaceships fighting from extreme distances with things like lasers, kinetics and missiles. From my understanding, Hard FT fights would be like submarine battles. With ships trying to ping each other, then deploy missiles or whatnot to engage them. [sure you can see forever in space..but lets not forget time dilation here.] If you look at something from 45 seconds ago...then your not going to be able to accurately piece things together of where they are now.

So in this case things like Lasers and missile-drones were excellent choices, as they could fire almost undetected and hopefully, if you saw him first and managed to stay silent, they would move right in to the path. Of course if hard FT incorporates battle shields and FTL sensors, well then i guess it makes the argument that the fighter is simply that much harder to detect and hit then a big ship, invalid.The fighter would only be threatened at close range if the opposite is true, as it is much easier to hide a fighter then a big war ship. Once the fighter was in real time you could likely see it alot better, but then it would be deploying its weapons by that point and you would be Fubar. Sure they can see gloves in earth orbit, but thats all less then a second away, and we can see farther out. In this case though it means PD would start to act at maybe 4-5 light seconds. If the enemy fighter has decent ECM or some sort of stealth, that may be closer to 2-3 ls.

So deploying these kinetics at 2-3 ls in my mind would definetly be more accurate then at 45 ls. If the fighter jinks all the way till it reaches 1 ls as well, it will become that much harder to hit. Why? Once again time dilation. Its like he is seeing one second in to your future. Much like in martial arts, if you are able to see the attack coming, if you can tell what he is going to do, you can counter all of his attacks. Seeing one second in to the future would enable you to do that, to counter every blow before its landed.

In this case however at about 7-8 ls, you would see all the fire seconds before, and vector out of the way relatively easily.Interestingly enough 7-8 ls is about the maximum two ships could probably engage each other for long at. Any further and you would constantly lose contact, even blundering away from battle at times. Yes you may have seen where he is, even know where he was going however long ago. But if he turns one way and you turn another...you have just lost him. Therefore all combat in hard science FT would be in extreme close proximity compared to FT with FTL sensors and whatnot.

Realistically then, wouldnt all Hard Science space battles take place in earth orbits, at fantastically short ranges? In this case then, wouldnt fighters, who though fragile and weak are so numerous in these circumstances be a majour weapons platform. After all everyone would be striking simultaneously in this case, just smashing each other to bits at extreme close range. In this case the fighters are by default close. This being hard Sci fi means no shields, it means big nukes will kill warships.

After all why bother looking for an enemy in deep space when the important parts of the system are planets. The idea that you will be engaging in deep space for no reason other then to fight it out is kind of silly. In this case wouldnt it then be ship to ship fighting over planets? Then battlesats and fighters both might be useful. I dont know though, this really changes the whole scenario around a bit. After all no one has yet brought up the point that almost all battle would take place in orbit of a world, nor have they addressed the extreme differences in time dilation. A cruiser you were following, fifteen ls away could suddenly be somewhere completely else if it just turned when it was detected, you would see everything fifteen seconds ago.The only possible exception would be deep space bases and jump points for FTL that requires jump points.

So all the physics in the world may not be able to save the humble fighter in hard science FT. Time dilation, real science sensors and their tiny size, as well as proximity to the enemy in the case of orbital fighting, might make them a bit more viable.In fact it may take the addition of FTL sensors to hard science FT to put down the humble fighter. As all the math in the world makes perfect sense, but put it next to the practical realities of time dilation, and you realise that perhaps everything was wrong. Either your in each others faces, or your so far away your star ship battle is more like the board game battleship. Either way the humble fighter still has its uses, like it does in naval battles of today. With all the advanced ship mounted close defense weapons we now have, we still cant put down fighters accurately. Why is that suddenly going to start to change over the years? Especially considering how hard it would be to simply hit a ship at long range in space, let alone a fighter. Time dilation ftw.

Quoted because I don't feel like repeating that I do know my fair share of physics. My previous post was focused more on tactics, which I admit are not my strength. However, you seem to assume that I'm a total idiot, and that is not the case.

No, I'm just annoyed to see someone using a game as an example. I'm just offensive, to put it bluntly. That, and please, for the love of whichever deity you do or don't worship, don't assume things. "Point-defenses are usually fixed". Right, but someone might have small missile point-defenses. Or perhaps reflective arrays that allow them a far greater area they can shoot to. It's like saying 'thrusters are only ever aimed in one direction', or something that may sound plausible from your point of view, but it doesn't necessarily mean that everyone else will conform to your worldview.

Your initial argument, and your physics were sound. The Laws of Motion ain't rocket science. Well, in this case they are, admittedly, but nevertheless. It was the 'That, and try to get something that huge through tight spaces'.

I'm unsure as to which tight spaces inside of the stupendously massive vacuum known as space you're referring to - unless you're silly enough to engage someone in battle inside of a giant interplanetary office building, or something to that effect.

Many of your responsess to things I say blatantly insult me without any thought at all about what I said. Thank you for that.

Awww, forced politeness. Look, I don't mind what you call me. I honestly don't. But the fact is, I'm not really likely to take someone serious in an argument about physics when the climax of their argument refers to a game.

Your ships would have to ACCELERATE to reach the same speed as the fighter, and also accelerate in any direction taken by the smaller craft.

Right. That's why they have engines. I'm glad we could sort that out.

I'm sorry that you seem to have decided that my being new to the forums is a reason to respond to my statements like I am some kind of "half-braindead moron"

Awwww. I'm simply saying that there are many more effective ways to use point-defense, weaponry that can move across the ship being one of the very least.

and I used the game reference to try to better illustrate what I was trying to explain. You did not have to take the tones that you did to counter my statements, yet you did and ended up making me almost sink to using similar insults.

Seriously. I don't care if you call me a annoying arsewiping dickhead, or whatever takes your fancy. If this was verbal debate, I might. But it's not. If you're really offended by what I've said, I apologise.

The answer as to the answer to anything else in this is no, they arent. Some nations put more in their ships, others more in fighters, more in to their defensive systems or strategic arsenals.

Its science fiction, lets all remember that fiction isnt real, and it doesnt have to follow real life.

And let's all remember that it's science fiction. With an s at the front. Sure, it's fiction. But we do have to pay more than lip service to the laws of physics.

However I would like a hard science answer on how a big ship is going to hit a small ship just as easily just because of the lack of cover.

Quite easily. Boom.

Remember modern fleet combat has little to no cover.

What are you talking about? Modern fleet combat has the most important cover of all - the horizon. The curvature of the earth provides a massive amount of cover, until you come into direct line-of-sight with the enemy fleet. Space doesn't have that. There's no horizon to protect your fighters before they get close.

Ships still miss each other and air craft coming at them. Why would there not be ECM or other technology like chaff, or simply moving out of the way that makes it like modern.

Because, A, you have absolutely no indication that you're being fired at. None whatsoever.

Lasers may be doom to fighter planes, but space there is enough distance to miss with those lasers. Also in hard sci fi one has to remember that you dont have FTL sensors usually.

Right. But in hard sci-fi, this works both ways. You're not able to change direction nearly as drastically as you would be able to with such space fantasy toys as inertial nullifiers, and thus, your direction is much more predictable.

If the little ecm cloaked hard science fighter comes in to less then 1 light second and deploys

Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. One of the defining tenets of hard sci-fi. Everyone can see you. You're not going to be able to deploy at one light-second. They're going to know where you are LONG before that.

it is going to be more accurate during missile deployment then something 40 light seconds away firing at a blinking shadow

A..blinking shadow. Could you put that in terms that I can understand?



In this case the little humble fighter could redirect its course if they were wrong, where the missile may have too little fuel to alter their course if they were wrong. After all missiles shouldnt be ten to fifteen meters long if they dont want to be shot down.

Ah, yes. By this logic, so should fighters.

From my understanding, Hard FT fights would be like submarine battles.

More like long-range artillery battles supported by air reconaissance. You know where the other guy is, but your fire takes a moment or two to arrive.

If you look at something from 45 seconds ago...then your not going to be able to accurately piece things together of where they are now.

If you're engaging a light-minute, your weapons aren't going to be effective in any case.


[quote[After all why bother looking for an enemy in deep space when the important parts of the system are planets. The idea that you will be engaging in deep space for no reason other then to fight it out is kind of silly.


Space is big. Moving from planet to planet takes time. It may not be 'deep' space, but the space between planets is certainly empty enough to engage in.

And.. your entire argument from here on in appears to be based around some sort of bizarre 'submarine warfare in space'. Since I more-or-less rebutted that point earlier-on, I don't see much point in following on with that train of thought.

Admittedly, yes. But the simple matter of the fact is then I don't even need to engage enemy ships -


I'd love to see you explain that.

Ah, yes. These ships with equal velocities - are these the same 'less-engine orientated warships with heavier armaments'? You can't have it both ways, I'm afraid.

But that's the thing. I can. You see, while my slower battleship may not accelerate as quickly, the velocity will still be the same if I accelerate longer than you.

Of course. The problem here is that we're dealing with battleships with pinpoint accuracy, who'll hit these torpedo boats 99 times out of a hundred. And that have enough armament to aim for every one of them.

Unfortunately, these torpedo boats are dodging, and the question of if you have enough armament really depends on just how many fighters I've deployed.

And this is where the analogy begins to fall apart. Because these torpedo boats can only be armed with men with rifles aboard - not torpedoes. A bomber, by comparison, might have a sniper-rifle.

And just who's ass did you pull that out of? Fighters used against ships have always packed torpedoes or bombs that are more than capable of damaging capital ships.

So? My missiles are going to do a lot more. Let's say that, on a victorious mission, 15% of all the fighters survive. A bit of a generous estimate, admittedly, but still almost reasonable. On a non-successful one, they all die.

You seriously overestimate the effectiveness of your anti-fighter defenses. Given that you have no fighters of your own, it's more or less open season for my fighters.

Now, let's compare this to missiles. On a successful mission, 0% of my missiles survive. On a non-successful one, 0% of my missiles survive. So, the question is, are missiles more than 1.15 times better than fighters for their cost?

Given that your arguement focuses on your imaginary numbers, the rest of your arguement is completely pointless. Further, my fighters can go on multiple sorties and strike multiple targets. Have fun getting that kind of cost effectiveness out of a one-use missile.

Not really. Because, due to the resource you spent on those fighters, you have less ships. Therefore, my extra ships simply decimate those fighters, and go on to use superior firepower to win the battle with relative ease. Fighters aren't free.

That's perhaps the flimsiest arguement you've put up so far. To think that fighters would cut into a shipbuilding budget is simply asinine.

When commissioned, each Iowa class battleship cost $125 million. While I can't find the data on the TBF/M Avenger, I did find that a P-47 Thunderbolt cost about $85k each. Lets say that due to the requirements of carrier use and the fact that the TBF was newer and bigger, the TBF cost about $100k each. At that kind of price range, it would take 1250 Avengers to match the price of an Iowa.

On the other hand, FT battleships are often hundreds or thousands of meters long, while fighters are still about the same size as they've always been. As the ship's size scales, so does price. A FT battleship would likely cost trillions of dollars, while production fighters would probably ring in under a hundred million or two each. Quite simply, you'd have to produce tens of thousands before you'd put even a slight dent into your warship production budget.

In practice, it would be less than that. Logistics.

(assuming you can't make use of various technologies to produce parts on the spot when neccesary).

In practice, it would be less than that. Logistics.

(assuming you can't make use of various technologies to produce parts on the spot when neccesary).

What was that in reference to?

The direct comparison of the number of fighters you can buy for the cost of one battleship.

The direct comparison of the number of fighters you can buy for the cost of one battleship.

Well, fighters have the major advantages of standardized, mass produced parts and having far, far fewer parts in the first place. A battleship would probably require more logistical muscle to keep running than all of the fighters you could buy for the price of the battleship.

But that's the thing. I can. You see, while my slower battleship may not accelerate as quickly, the velocity will still be the same if I accelerate longer than you.

This assumes that you've been accelerating for longer than I have. If you're going to make assumptions about the situation, why bother with the entire argument. After all, if I've already destroyed your entire fleet and reduced you to a single defenceless city on a single world with my fleet intact, then I'll win a war against you. It's true, but it's also asinine.

Unfortunately, these torpedo boats are dodging, and the question of if you have enough armament really depends on just how many fighters I've deployed.

Right. That, of course, is obvious. But the fact remains that PD is more effective against fighters than fighters are against capships - and eminently more reuseable.

And just who's ass did you pull that out of? Fighters used against ships have always packed torpedoes or bombs that are more than capable of damaging capital ships.

At capship engagement distances? Hell, no. And apparently I pulled it out of the same arse that you pulled most of your assumptions about fighters from.

You seriously overestimate the effectiveness of your anti-fighter defenses. Given that you have no fighters of your own, it's more or less open season for my fighters.

Awww... it's almost as if you forget that I have the same amount of resources to use on anti-fighter defenses. How adorable. However, it doesn't contribute anything to your argument.

Given that your arguement focuses on your imaginary numbers, the rest of your arguement is completely pointless. Further, my fighters can go on multiple sorties and strike multiple targets.

Whoop-dee-fucking-doo. I'm sure that'll be a great comfort to the tiny little shattered hulls that were once your fighters.

Have fun getting that kind of cost effectiveness out of a one-use missile.

Well, at least they'll be doing damage, which is more than you can say for your one-use fighters.

That's perhaps the flimsiest arguement you've put up so far. To think that fighters would cut into a shipbuilding budget is simply asinine.

Ah. So they don't cost anything, eh? Good to see you're able to fabricate fighters out of thin air, without any cost to any other segments of your military. Since you possess the miraculous ability to construct ships for no cost, I'd care to know your secret - is it the famed arse-space, perhaps? I think so.

When commissioned, each Iowa class battleship cost $125 million. While I can't find the data on the TBF/M Avenger, I did find that a P-47 Thunderbolt cost about $85k each. Lets say that due to the requirements of carrier use and the fact that the TBF was newer and bigger, the TBF cost about $100k each. At that kind of price range, it would take 1250 Avengers to match the price of an Iowa.

Ah, yes. Honestly, you're carrying the seafaring analogy too far. It lasts for, at best, one post. The thing crumbles every time.

On the other hand, FT battleships are often hundreds or thousands of meters long, while fighters are still about the same size as they've always been. As the ship's size scales, so does price. A FT battleship would likely cost trillions of dollars, while production fighters would probably ring in under a hundred million or two each. Quite simply, you'd have to produce tens of thousands before you'd put even a slight dent into your warship production budget.

Mmm. Which means you'd have to produce hundreds of thousands of the little things before you could even dent a proper capship.

Now, just out of curiosity. Why do you even use capital ships? You seem to be so convinced of the fighter's superiority to a capital ship, so why are you still using the clunking great things? By your logic, a ship can sacrifice size and power, and still retain its effectiveness entire. Of course, you believe that you can create ships for no cost - and that you're always going to be entering combat in conditions utterly favorable to yourself.

Have fun in fantasy-land, sweetie.

Hyperspatial Travel, please try to argue without being rude. The rest of us are able to manage it.

Attack the argument, not the person.

mass, and thus inertia, remains a factor in manuverability, reguardless of the other factors cited. however it is the humble opinion of cameroi, that warfare itself is obsolete in future tecnology do to innumerable factors conveniently overlooked by enthusiasts of it. logistics being one signifigant element. one who'se roll in all warfare throughout history has seldom been given its due, yet has decided many and many a pivotal conflict.

=^^=
.../\...

But that's the thing. I can. You see, while my slower battleship may not accelerate as quickly, the velocity will still be the same if I accelerate longer than you.

You still can't have it both ways. HT's accelerator-battleship will still outstrip your fighter-battleship in speed. The only time this ploy will work is if you are already very close (in a matter of light-seconds) or if you get the accelerator by surprise. If you huck a fighter forwards that accelerates slower than the acceleratorship then you will only lose ground.

Unfortunately, these torpedo boats are dodging, and the question of if you have enough armament really depends on just how many fighters I've deployed.

You either have speed, or you can dodge. Sure, you could try both, but the effect is negligible, since inertia will see to it that the dodging needs to be predictable anyway. If you're going slow enough to be weaving about in a dodgy sort of way, then you're going so slow that in the relativistic world of space combat you may as well be sitting still for all the help it would do. A brief puff of thrusters and the ship is beyond your dodgy torpedo boat's range indefinitely.

If you're going fast enough to close the distance effectively (ie. before christmas) then your path becomes predictable and you will probably get shot.

And just who's ass did you pull that out of? Fighters used against ships have always packed torpedoes or bombs that are more than capable of damaging capital ships.

Which, being necessarily smaller than their capship counterparts, have pathetic range. If you pack an ICBM warhead into a sidewinder missile you're going to have a gloriously devastating missile which can be fired all of 2mm. If you strap a full-blown capship missile to your fighter, you have a giant missile with a little cockpit strapped to the top. It then becomes a manned missile, with escape mechanism.

Bombs really have no place on fighters, unless they're manned missiles. What are you going to do, line up your ship and try to drop it so it'll fly into the enemy ship? You'd need to be within the tens of kilometres to do that, and by then you're dead, either through point defence or going to fast you just smash into the hull after it.

You seriously overestimate the effectiveness of your anti-fighter defenses. Given that you have no fighters of your own, it's more or less open season for my fighters.

It doesn't even need to be very good. Main guns could shoot down fighters. A person can only take so many Gs, and so the fighters couldn't really do all that dodgy stuff we see in space-opera. If you have the high-tech computers to make fighters with cockpits usable, then I would have the computers to make lasers with little swivel reflectors and tracking software to track and zap all these fighters.

Given that your argument focuses on your imaginary numbers, the rest of your arguement is completely pointless. Further, my fighters can go on multiple sorties and strike multiple targets. Have fun getting that kind of cost effectiveness out of a one-use missile.

But with fighters you have to train up pilots, build in life support, and build in inertial dampeners. That alone makes the cost of a fighter several times that of a one use missile.

That's perhaps the flimsiest arguement you've put up so far. To think that fighters would cut into a shipbuilding budget is simply asinine.

When commissioned, each Iowa class battleship cost $125 million. While I can't find the data on the TBF/M Avenger, I did find that a P-47 Thunderbolt cost about $85k each. Lets say that due to the requirements of carrier use and the fact that the TBF was newer and bigger, the TBF cost about $100k each. At that kind of price range, it would take 1250 Avengers to match the price of an Iowa.

On the other hand, FT battleships are often hundreds or thousands of meters long, while fighters are still about the same size as they've always been. As the ship's size scales, so does price. A FT battleship would likely cost trillions of dollars, while production fighters would probably ring in under a hundred million or two each. Quite simply, you'd have to produce tens of thousands before you'd put even a slight dent into your warship production budget.

The same could be said of missiles. Except you could buy more missiles.

Don't forget you also need to factor in that your starfighters are either using little directed energy weapons or missiles, which need to be factored in, unless you're going for kamikaze fighters.

mass, and thus inertia, remains a factor in manuverability, reguardless of the other factors cited. however it is the humble opinion of cameroi, that warfare itself is obsolete in future tecnology do to innumerable factors conveniently overlooked by enthusiasts of it. logistics being one signifigant element. one who'se roll in all warfare throughout history has seldom been given its due, yet has decided many and many a pivotal conflict.



...yeah. Kay, my apologies, AN and Bryn Shander. I've apparently been out of the loop too long, and forgotten what asinine, or living in pixie-land actually means. Which, in this case, is interrupting a thread on fighter useability with an anti-war spiel.

Of course, this dude jumps into random threads and rants about how either resources are running out, that America and capitalism are evil, or that warfare is obsolete.

In any case. Beddy times. Good times. Have fun with writing up your rebuttle.

This assumes that you've been accelerating for longer than I have.
It does, but you're ignoring the most important feature of movement in space. Ships do not have a top speed short of the light speed barrier. Even if you're only accelerating at 10Gs, you can still hit .1c the same as someone accelerating at 100Gs. It will just take more time. To assume that I can't catch you simply because you have a bigger engine in space is idiotic, since power-to-mass will only affect acceleration. Fighters generally have a power-to-mass ratio that blows even the quickest battleship out of the water anyway.



Right. That, of course, is obvious. But the fact remains that PD is more effective against fighters than fighters are against capships - and eminently more reuseable.

That all depends on the PD and fighters in question. The US Navy was very well protected from Japanese air attacks, while the Japanese Navy was quite vulnerable to the point of impotency. To automatically assume superiority is little more than godmoding.


At capship engagement distances? Hell, no. And apparently I pulled it out of the same arse that you pulled most of your assumptions about fighters from.
I'm pulling my assumptions from the past seventy years of naval aviation. At the moment, fighters and bombers are capable of carrying missiles just as heavy as modern ships can, while having greatly extended range and accuracy. If my fighters are launching their fish at capital ship engagement ranges, that means that my ships are far beyond those ranges and you can't hit them. Funny how that works out.


Awww... it's almost as if you forget that I have the same amount of resources to use on anti-fighter defenses. How adorable. However, it doesn't contribute anything to your argument.
A static defense will never be able to match a mobile defense. There's a reason that fighters are best countered with other fighters and not ground based batteries, and why the forts and walls of old have been replaced with highly mobile fast response units.


Whoop-dee-fucking-doo. I'm sure that'll be a great comfort to the tiny little shattered hulls that were once your fighters.
As opposed to the comfort that you'll get when your missile tubes are exhausted after one battle and you've just entered a second?


Well, at least they'll be doing damage, which is more than you can say for your one-use fighters.
I don't recall my fighters being one-use, nor that my fighters were packing impotent payloads. An anti-ship torpedo will hurt regardless of if it was launched from a fighter or a ship.


Ah. So they don't cost anything, eh? Good to see you're able to fabricate fighters out of thin air, without any cost to any other segments of your military. Since you possess the miraculous ability to construct ships for no cost, I'd care to know your secret - is it the famed arse-space, perhaps? I think so.
Or perhaps the money is just so negligible in the grand scheme of things that the ship budget wouldn't be even slightly affected. When I can buy tens of thousands of fighters for the cost of one battleship, the few hundred I have to replace after I just sank yours is rather irrelevent.


Ah, yes. Honestly, you're carrying the seafaring analogy too far. It lasts for, at best, one post. The thing crumbles every time.
Well when you can find me a land battleship to compare this to, I'll stop using the seafaring analogies.


Mmm. Which means you'd have to produce hundreds of thousands of the little things before you could even dent a proper capship.
Except that you're forgetting that a F/A-18E launched Harpoon will hurt just as much as an Arleigh Burke launched Harpoon. The F/A-18E launched Harpoon on the other hand is launched while my ships are well beyond your missile ranges and can be called back if the situation changes.

Now, just out of curiosity. Why do you even use capital ships? You seem to be so convinced of the fighter's superiority to a capital ship, so why are you still using the clunking great things?
I use capital ships because fighters cannot do everything. Likewise, modern militaries use tanks because infantry cannot do everything. However, like tanks and infantry, if you have one without the other and your opponent has both, you're fucked. If you want to sail your ships or drive your tanks into combat without proper fighter or infantry support and your opponent has not been as foolish, you're boned.

By your logic, a ship can sacrifice size and power, and still retain its effectiveness entire. Of course, you believe that you can create ships for no cost - and that you're always going to be entering combat in conditions utterly favorable to yourself.
One fighter is not as effective as a ship is in combat. A swarm of fighters is. Against an opponent who lacks fighter support, a swarm of fighters is deadlier than a ship. After all, a ship can be taken out with a few solid hits. A swarm of fighters cannot.

Have fun in fantasy-land, sweetie.
I'm sure I will. You seem to enjoy it quite a bit.

The people arguing over the whole acceleration and speed bit are missing a few things as well-- what if your engine technology is not equal, or one or both sides possess an inertialess drive? Mass may not be a factor.

In FT, technology tends to vary greatly from person to person.

A fighter is a mobile missile platform. The question is, though, why bother with the fighter component when you can just make a bigger, faster, more agile, deadlier missile with less expensive? Especially when it comes to human life?

Also a fighter has this thing with being fragile and slow that we can't really get around when it comes right down to it; having it attack capships is really just your way of getting revenge for said pilots taking turns poking your wife one night at the local pub when everyone was on leave, and you were too busy with work to satisfy here needs. Damn the paperwork...

You still can't have it both ways. HT's accelerator-battleship will still outstrip your fighter-battleship in speed. The only time this ploy will work is if you are already very close (in a matter of light-seconds) or if you get the accelerator by surprise. If you huck a fighter forwards that accelerates slower than the acceleratorship then you will only lose ground.
Unfortunately for that arguement, if my ship is only a bit slower than his is and my fighters are equal to his battleship, the fighters will be closing in quite quickly. You forget that the fighter starts with an initial velocity that matches the velocity of the launching ship. Use of launch catapults helps the fighter catch up even more.


You either have speed, or you can dodge. Sure, you could try both, but the effect is negligible, since inertia will see to it that the dodging needs to be predictable anyway. If you're going slow enough to be weaving about in a dodgy sort of way, then you're going so slow that in the relativistic world of space combat you may as well be sitting still for all the help it would do. A brief puff of thrusters and the ship is beyond your dodgy torpedo boat's range indefinitely.

If you're going fast enough to close the distance effectively (ie. before christmas) then your path becomes predictable and you will probably get shot.
That problem is even greater for missiles, since missiles are designed to be cheap and so wouldn't have the engines or fuel to close on the target and change course to try to dodge incoming fire. I won't say that the fighters will be able to dodge bullets like it were an arcade top-down shooter, but they can do far more than a missile could or a warship could.

Alternatively, the flight path for incoming ordinance would be even easier to calculate and thus dodge or destroy with onboard weaponry.



Which, being necessarily smaller than their capship counterparts, have pathetic range. If you pack an ICBM warhead into a sidewinder missile you're going to have a gloriously devastating missile which can be fired all of 2mm. If you strap a full-blown capship missile to your fighter, you have a giant missile with a little cockpit strapped to the top. It then becomes a manned missile, with escape mechanism.
That's simply a false assumption. First of all, modern fighters and bombers can carry the same missiles that warships do without problem. They usually only get one or two shots, but that's why they bring friends. Secondly, the AIM-9 Sidewinder is an air-to-air missile designed to be fast and maneuverable to take out enemy fighters. Comparing it to an anti-ship missile is comparing apples to oranges. A better comparison would be the Mk-46 torpedo, which is in fact big enough to carry a nuclear charge.

Bombs really have no place on fighters, unless they're manned missiles. What are you going to do, line up your ship and try to drop it so it'll fly into the enemy ship? You'd need to be within the tens of kilometres to do that, and by then you're dead, either through point defence or going to fast you just smash into the hull after it.
Hardly. As it is, modern guided bombs can be dropped at ranges almost as great as those of missiles. Without the problems caused by planetary gravity, an unguided bomb could be launched from any range, and its speed would be the same as the fighter's when the bomb was released. That said, I don't use unguided bombs in space, but I could if I so chose.



It doesn't even need to be very good. Main guns could shoot down fighters. A person can only take so many Gs, and so the fighters couldn't really do all that dodgy stuff we see in space-opera. If you have the high-tech computers to make fighters with cockpits usable, then I would have the computers to make lasers with little swivel reflectors and tracking software to track and zap all these fighters.

But if your main guns are shooting down my individual fighters, what is shooting at my ships?

But with fighters you have to train up pilots, build in life support, and build in inertial dampeners. That alone makes the cost of a fighter several times that of a one use missile.
The fact that the fighter will probably be surviving several missions before being damaged beyond repair or destroyed offsets that cost by quite a bit. The most valuable part of a fighter is the pilot as the Japanese found out, and there are ways to greatly increase pilot survivability.


The same could be said of missiles. Except you could buy more missiles.
But the missiles would have a shorter range, shorter lifespan, and no ability to change targets as the situation changes.

1: Say what you will, point defense systems and capital ship main guns have limits that some people aren't taking into account. At long range, space is a very big place and when you're firing at something far away, your target is very small, and god hep you if you're trying to shoot a fighter from that range. Sure, you might hit them a few times before they get close enough to return effective fire, but even a slight error in your gun's angle would result in the shot, and that range, maybe even missing by kilometers.The same applies to missiles, and is therefore irrelevant, as it doesn't explain why you prefer fighters to missiles.

2: Point defenses, like the turrets on bombers, are a good idea in theory, but in use the limitations become obvious. There's a limit to how many of these you can stash on a single ship and still have the ammo (if needed), power, and other such systems leading to them that you need. Then there's a problem with the fact that point defenses are normally fixed. There's a bad situation that occurs when little fighters are out-maneuvering your ship and staying mostly behind the engines, where coverage tends to be lower, or actually (gasp) attacking your turrets. Has anyone here played Freespace or Freespace 2? You know what I mean when a cap-ship is sitting there, stripped of it's turrets due to fighter/bomber assaults. All the point defenses did was slow the fighters down a little bit.Again, why fighters, when missiles can do the same job more effectively...?

Incidentally, sitting right behind a ship's exhaust tends to be dangerous. With reactiondrives, they're - at NS-scale accelerations - spewing gigatons in your direction. Even if you're far enough away to avoid 'em - your ordnance has to get through that.

And in the case of reactionless propulsion, you're probably going to be caught in something rather exotic and incredibly painful.

Incidentally, LOL@targetting individual turrets. Your pilots don't have the necessary reflexes, sorry.

Nevermind that with the majority of people, said turrets tend to be protected by shields you can't even scratch with a bloody fighter.

Unfortunately, if you're packing the engines on your battleship to accelerate like a fighter, your battleship will be easy prey to a less engine oriented warship with a heavier armament.If it gets into range...

Besides, if, lets say, 40% of a warship's volume are spent on engine, you can, lets say, dot the entire front half with guns and - rather than trying broadsides - do a frontal attack. The hypothetical opponent might only have, lets say, 20% of its volume dedicated to propulsion. It'll therefore have 50% more guns than the first ship.

But a good portion of these guns wont be able to fire, 'cause they're pointing in the wrong direction.

So much for 'Superior Firepower'.

Now, it looks a little better with missiles - you don't have the same problem there. But the faster (As in, accelerating quicker) ship can, well, run, and - unless it's stupid and tries a frontal assault with missiles coming its way - will have more time to intercept the missiles.

Either way, the advantage can be negated.

You're also forgetting that a fighter launched from a ship in space will share the launching ship's velocity before the increase from the ship's catapults and the fighter's engines. Assuming two ships with equal velocities, the fighters should have no problem catching the battleship.No, because the fighter & the ship it launched from - assuming they both have equal engine-to-mass ratios - will only be able to accelerate at a similar pace. The only way the fighter can outrun its own mothership is if this ship starts decelerating - and it has absolutely no advantage when it comes to hunting down a target.

That's quite a fitting analogy there. You see, the destroyer was originally created as a small, fast ship designed to destroy torpedo boats. Back in the day, torpedo boats were one of the biggest threats to battleships. While they didn't damage the battleships with their token batteries of guns, they were more than capable of sinking them with their torpedoes, which is how a spacedy attack fighter would fight. Sure, the torpedo boats will be vulnerable to point defense guns, but the loss of a few torpedo boats is nothing compare to the loss of a battleship.And torpedo boats were necessary because they didn't have torpedoes that could swim a few hundred kilometres on their own, and independently acquire & attack a target.

Oddly enough, this is exactly what the average spacedy missile can do (Add a few orders of magnitude to the 'Couple hundred kilometres'). No need for spacedy torpedo boats.

There's also a limit to how many missiles you can produce, and fighters tend to survive missions far more often than missiles.Funny, how I addressed this in a previous post. Missiles == cheaper (FAR cheaper) than fighters. And you don't need to have pilots for them, either.

And of course, the fighter needs missiles to be effective - so you have to produce both while the other side can engage over the same distance, with more missiles, and a lower risk of taking casualties...

In this case the little humble fighter could redirect its course if they were wrong, where the missile may have too little fuel to alter their course if they were wrong. After all missiles shouldnt be ten to fifteen meters long if they dont want to be shot down.The sheer lack of logic in your statement astounds me.

An equal mass missile would have more fuel available than a fighter (No life support, no need to return).

Also, how the hell can you argue that too big a missile will be shot down and then be pro-fighter when it's fucking obvious that the same would inevitably, inherently and, in fact, much easier happen to the fighter.

Seriously. That's just sad.

That's perhaps the flimsiest arguement you've put up so far. To think that fighters would cut into a shipbuilding budget is simply asinine.

When commissioned, each Iowa class battleship cost $125 million. While I can't find the data on the TBF/M Avenger, I did find that a P-47 Thunderbolt cost about $85k each. Lets say that due to the requirements of carrier use and the fact that the TBF was newer and bigger, the TBF cost about $100k each. At that kind of price range, it would take 1250 Avengers to match the price of an Iowa.How about you look at modern prices? The newest generation of frigates: ~ 500 mio €. The average supercarrier: ~ 4 bn

The newest generation of fighters: About 75 mio €.

It does, but you're ignoring the most important feature of movement in space. Ships do not have a top speed short of the light speed barrier. Even if you're only accelerating at 10Gs, you can still hit .1c the same as someone accelerating at 100Gs. It will just take more time. To assume that I can't catch you simply because you have a bigger engine in space is idiotic, since power-to-mass will only affect acceleration. Fighters generally have a power-to-mass ratio that blows even the quickest battleship out of the water anyway.If you both start accelerating at the same time then yes, you wont catch him. Ever.

I'm pulling my assumptions from the past seventy years of naval aviation. At the moment, fighters and bombers are capable of carrying missiles just as heavy as modern ships can, while having greatly extended range and accuracy. If my fighters are launching their fish at capital ship engagement ranges, that means that my ships are far beyond those ranges and you can't hit them. Funny how that works out.Incorrect assumptions.

1. Show me a fighter capable of carrying the heaviest naval missiles in existance (I.e. Trident II SLBM, 58 tonnes, range 7500 km).

2. There is zero range extension. No friction in space, and the missile wont just fall down when it ceases to burn fuel - no planetary gravity to force it down. Note the fantastic range of Voyager 2, which has by now crossed about twelve billion kilometres, and is still going.

Your fighter provides zero advantages, because the missile's range is effectively unlimited, and because it can't accelerate faster than the missile (Unless you've seriously odd missile designs, anyway).

Whether you use a second stage (The fighter) or just missiles makes no difference whatsoever (Well, with the fighter, time on target increases slightly), but you carry less missiles. Congrats.

3. There is zero increase in accuracy, because the missile can correct its course just as well as the fighter can. If not better.

As opposed to the comfort that you'll get when your missile tubes are exhausted after one battle and you've just entered a second?Ummm... You carry fighetrs AND missiles. You do therefore have LESS missiles. Thus, you'll exhaust your ordnance FASTER than the other side will.

You don't happen to be horribly confused, do you?

I don't recall my fighters being one-use, nor that my fighters were packing impotent payloads. An anti-ship torpedo will hurt regardless of if it was launched from a fighter or a ship.Ties wonderfully into the above, doesn't it?

Or perhaps the money is just so negligible in the grand scheme of things that the ship budget wouldn't be even slightly affected. When I can buy tens of thousands of fighters for the cost of one battleship, the few hundred I have to replace after I just sank yours is rather irrelevent.10000 4.5 generation fighters amount to about 750 bn €, or 986 bn $.

Pretty expensive battleship you have there, bub.

Except that you're forgetting that a F/A-18E launched Harpoon will hurt just as much as an Arleigh Burke launched Harpoon. The F/A-18E launched Harpoon on the other hand is launched while my ships are well beyond your missile ranges and can be called back if the situation changes.We're forgetting that space combat doesn't equal naval combat, don't we?

The people arguing over the whole acceleration and speed bit are missing a few things as well-- what if your engine technology is not equal, or one or both sides possess an inertialess drive? Mass may not be a factor.Irrelevant. If one side enjoys a drastic technological advantage, it'll win regardless of whether the aplication of this technology makes sense or not. The french Danton-class pre-Dreadnought was a horrifically poor design - but it'd still have sunk a virtual infinite number of 1790's lineships.

To see whether something is a good idea you have to compare it to alternative equivtech solutions, otherwise you're not getting reliable information.

Unfortunately for that arguement, if my ship is only a bit slower than his is and my fighters are equal to his battleship, the fighters will be closing in quite quickly. You forget that the fighter starts with an initial velocity that matches the velocity of the launching ship. Use of launch catapults helps the fighter catch up even more.Your understanding of physics horrifies me.

AGAIN: If the fighter can accelerate as hard as its target, and it has the same initial velocity as the target, the distance between them wont change because they're accelerating at the same pace.

Of course, as the carrier is likely slower than the target, the fighter's initial velocity will also be less than the target's, and the distance will actually increase.

What you're imagining is, apparently, that not only will the fighter have the initial velocity of its carrier (Meaning that it'll coast along with it, unless it accelerates and the carrier doesn't), but that this somehow, magically doubles.

Which is, frankly, bullshit.

That problem is even greater for missiles, since missiles are designed to be cheap and so wouldn't have the engines or fuel to close on the target and change course to try to dodge incoming fire.Lol? The fuel isn't the expensive part of a fighter (Or missile). Observe typical mid-range missiles having about 1/2 the range of a modern fighter, while costing about 1/100. Particularly in space, live support (In a fighter) will be your greatest worry. Something the missile doesn't need...

But the missiles would have a shorter range, shorter lifespan, and no ability to change targets as the situation changes.Last I checked, ICBMs, IRBMs & SLBMs outrange fighters by quite a bit.. An order of magnitude, even.

Nevermind (Again... This gets tiring) that the missile's range in space > the fighter's range. As in, the missile has infinite range and can spend, well... If we want to save something up for evasive maneuvers, 90% of its fuel on accelerating.

The fighter needs to save half its fuel on decelerating for its return.

Whoops...

Oh, and it kinda saddens me that your missiles are significantly inferior to the newest generation of RL missiles (Which can change their targets).

As people have said before, fighters are used because they like the ideas. Personally, I like the idea of writing the chatter between the pilots as they DIE! *cough* Anyways, so what do you guys suggest it be changed to instead of fighters? Just smarter faster missiles, more PD's and drone fighters done with advanced computers? Cause I am thinking to changing to one of those. Any advice on which one to take?

And when I change, it will be after the current war.

heh. personally, i shifted away from fighters towards a more "Patrol Torpedo Boat" design.

advantage a: all the arguments about analogies being rubbish due to different medium being a non issue in space go splat :D

advantage b: a pt boat design sacrifices Armour and redundant systems for engine power, like a fighter, true.. but it actually channels a significant portion of that sacrifice into weapons, as well.

[not really an] advantage c: PT boat is, technically, a function/class, nothing to do with size. however, there is an upper limit on how big it can be before that lack of significant defense becomes a Major issue, as opposed to simply something to watch out for.

advantage D: allows for carriers to be replaced with long range weapons platforms that also serve as resupply and repair bases, giving the entire Fleet greater endurance on that front.

there are of course, untold other factors.

anyway. at the end of the day: fighters are not obsolete in FT, or even FT combat of certain sorts. personal opinion after much research and deliberation though, they ARE obsolete in large scale fleet combat... except possibly as a counter to the PT-Boat idea... and even then, a small destroyer would do the job well enough [that's one of many things the class was designed for, apparently?]

most of the arguments For fighters in this thread either don't actually work, or work indirectly by actually arguing for bombers and/or PT-boat style vessles, to which the interceptor is one of two possible counters.

of course, most of the arguments AGAINST fighters are fairly rubbish too, because most of them would affect missiles in exactly the same way, or very similar ways, in some cases more so. and most of the people arguing that side Seem to be advocating the use of missiles instead of fighters.

personally, I'm going with a pt-boat type corvette class, and using them in a 'ghost rider' role, as well as a 'small escort ship' role, gunboat role, and so on and so forth.

send your small ships in WITH your missile waves, basically. keep them out of the warheads' detonation, but that's about it. mix 'em in with the clutter.

one major advantage fighters, missiles, and other small craft have is the ability to overwhelm an opponent's ability to track all the targets. on the other hand, large capital ships are pretty much going to be "one hit, one kill" against them.. though not necessarily "one shot, one hit"


end of the day, the arguments carry on and spin around and around. my conclusion is that there is no place for the conventional 'fighter' type in the conventional 'fighter' role.

there are, however, places for a different design to fill that role, and for that design to fill different roles.

believe it or not i had a point when i started. it mostly amounted to "this is what i think, and you all get WAY too wound up about this. "

I'm pulling my assumptions from the past seventy years of naval aviation.

I'm pulling my assumptions from theoretical combat in space. The fact that I'm not basing my entire argument on an analogy makes our arguments somewhat different - mine is, for one thing, at least somewhat realistic.

At the moment, fighters and bombers are capable of carrying missiles just as heavy as modern ships can, while having greatly extended range and accuracy. If my fighters are launching their missiles at capital ship engagement ranges, that means that my ships are far beyond those ranges and you can't hit them. Funny how that works out.


A static defense will never be able to match a mobile defense.

Ah, yes. I keep forgetting how all capital ships are completely engineless and immobile. Thank you for reminding me.


I don't recall my fighters being one-use

I'd love to see you trying to use burnt-out scrapheaps as fighters.

nor that my fighters were packing impotent payloads. An anti-ship torpedo will hurt regardless of if it was launched from a fighter or a ship.

Oh, of course. But your fighters will either have to A - expend extra fuel to carry the missile, thus making them easier to hit and slower, or B - carry a smaller missile, thus making them less potent.

Or perhaps the money is just so negligible in the grand scheme of things that the ship budget wouldn't be even slightly affected. When I can buy tens of thousands of fighters for the cost of one battleship, the few hundred I have to replace after I just sank yours is rather irrelevent.

'Sank'. How quaint. Keep in mind I'm not arguing against your naval analogy. Rather, I'm arguing that, in space, fighters are inferior when facing a force of capital ships made with equal resources - even if the fighters are supported by capships.

Well when you can find me a land battleship to compare this to, I'll stop using the seafaring analogies.

Or maybe we could debate the issue at hand. Space combat. Just a suggestion, y'know. I'm hardly denying the usefulness of fighters in WW2-era naval combat. But this isn't, and does not equate to WW2-era naval combat.

One fighter is not as effective as a ship is in combat. A swarm of fighters is. Against an opponent who lacks fighter support, a swarm of fighters is deadlier than a ship. After all, a ship can be taken out with a few solid hits. A swarm of fighters cannot.

Admittedly, the two lines are true. But since your swarm of fighters has a negligible chance of ever being able to deliver a few solid hits, the point is entirely moot.

I think people should stop stating that they're fine because they're fun: no one is contesting this. The question is, given FT technology and the circumstances surrounding it, are fighters still viable? It's similar to asking whether or not horse-based cavalry is a viable technology on a modern-day battlefield that ignores the aesthetic preferences of the questioned. I say no.

A fighter is nothing but a missile/bomb delivery system. It's not like a tank, or an infantryman; it can't hold nor take territory, it can only take out enemy units. It's what you're forced to deal with when you don't have sufficient AI technology, and efficient fuel sources that would allow said munition to function independent of the fighter system. Missiles just don't have the fuel (they'd be too big otherwise) to get where needed, and lack the necessary smart systems to accurately find their targets. In FT space-combat things are different.

For one thing, you don't need bombs. Dumb-fire munitions don't work in an arena where being off by .02 degrees means you miss the intended target by hundreds of miles. Plus, bombs are big, too big (and being dumb-fire), and slow to evade even the most simplistic of PD systems. So what are we left with?

Missiles. But let's first talk about particle cannons and other such weapons you could mount on a fighter: they suck. The reactor space on your a-typical fighter (and saying that a 200m vessel is a fighter is stupid, so please don't bring it up) is not enough to allow the installation of a sufficiently powerful energy or kinetic weapon that would scare any decent warship. Shield generators on most warships, are in fact possibly bigger than your average fighter. Plus there is this issue of being inaccurate on top of weak, and only being useful if you can get close, and in this case you've probably already been fried. So we can see that laser-cannons and other a-typical armaments for fighters as we see in most games are actually very useless.

So this brings us back to missiles. A 200 ton fighter can carry, let us just say, 2 anti-capship missiles. Forget about the yield, they're the type of missiles that hurt big, bad warships. Now the reason why the number has to be low is the maximize agility and speed, so the fighter retains all these preached about advantages. Also, there has to be space for the pilot in the cockpit, and the various systems that makes a fighter actually work. Basically this is deadweight.

And here's why: I can built a 200 ton missile, that is entire orders of magnitude deadlier than anything a single fighter can bring against the same target. The missile doesn't have to worry about the various fighter-systems that only adds complexity (fighters come back, and so do fighter pilots, which means they use more logistics resources than a single missile in a rack) and weight to slow the missile down in the acceleration phase. In fact, this missile would be faster and more agile than the fighter just by this virtue. Though some may still not be convinced.

"But I have advanced technology that can make a fighter pwn!" Here are the facts: any bit of technology that can make a fighter pwn, will make a missile pwn more. Let's take a look back at history. At one point the horse and buggy was the only way to move heavy pieces of equipment around the battlefield. With the advent of motorized vehicles, the buggy became obsolete.

Why? Because to compete with the weight-hauling capabilities of a car, you need to add more horses. At some point this obviously becomes a problem once cars were able to muster horse power ratings beyond ten. Extend this to missiles and fighters: due to the inherent complexities of the fighter system in comparison to a missile, advances in technology relevant to both fields, still benefits the missile more.

With these facts in mind, yet, fighters in their traditional roles are obsolete FT just as broadswords and bi-planes are now. Does that mean you can't use them? No. But when you look at things objectively, this is a fact you really can't deny.

Unfortunately for that arguement, if my ship is only a bit slower than his is and my fighters are equal to his battleship, the fighters will be closing in quite quickly. You forget that the fighter starts with an initial velocity that matches the velocity of the launching ship. Use of launch catapults helps the fighter catch up even more.

No, you will merely keep up with the acceleratorship. You need to out-accelerate the ship considerably to catch the ship.

That problem is even greater for missiles, since missiles are designed to be cheap and so wouldn't have the engines or fuel to close on the target and change course to try to dodge incoming fire. I won't say that the fighters will be able to dodge bullets like it were an arcade top-down shooter, but they can do far more than a missile could or a warship could.

By missile, it's in the sense of a ICBM ranged. For the size of a fighter, you could pack in an equivalent level AI, more fuel, and a bigger warhead. We're not talking AIM-9s here, we're talking cruise missiles and up. A missile has a 100% impact probability, simply because they have more fuel available than an equivalent size ship, and since they're lighter than any ship, can maneuver a lot faster.

Alternatively, the flight path for incoming ordinance would be even easier to calculate and thus dodge or destroy with onboard weaponry.

But the difference is nonetheless negligible. You're going to lose over 90% of them anyway by the time they get to engagement range.

That's simply a false assumption. First of all, modern fighters and bombers can carry the same missiles that warships do without problem. They usually only get one or two shots, but that's why they bring friends. Secondly, the AIM-9 Sidewinder is an air-to-air missile designed to be fast and maneuverable to take out enemy fighters. Comparing it to an anti-ship missile is comparing apples to oranges. A better comparison would be the Mk-46 torpedo, which is in fact big enough to carry a nuclear charge.

But we're still talking ICBM-grade warheads, not small scale ones like Tac-Nukes.

Hardly. As it is, modern guided bombs can be dropped at ranges almost as great as those of missiles. Without the problems caused by planetary gravity, an unguided bomb could be launched from any range, and its speed would be the same as the fighter's when the bomb was released. That said, I don't use unguided bombs in space, but I could if I so chose.

There is nothing which would even remotely suggest that a guided bomb with no self propulsion would be a viable option. Without main thrusters your bomb is just going to sail straight off, with or without maneuvering jets (no medium to adjust the course with).


But if your main guns are shooting down my individual fighters, what is shooting at my ships?

I was making the point that fighters are easy enough to shoot down without even resorting to dedicated point-defence. They're still capped as far as acceleration goes, thanks to fighter pilots, and as such they may as well be biplanes as far as Anti-Fighter weapons go.


The fact that the fighter will probably be surviving several missions before being damaged beyond repair or destroyed offsets that cost by quite a bit. The most valuable part of a fighter is the pilot as the Japanese found out, and there are ways to greatly increase pilot survivability.

Not true. Given that a main-gun grade weapon (in modern terms, a 18" or something) can easily shoot down a fighter, there's little stopping high powered point defence weapons, which would simply vaporise the fighters. I challenge you to name ways in which pilot survivability could be increased.

But the missiles would have a shorter range, shorter lifespan, and no ability to change targets as the situation changes.

No, the would be on the grade of ICBMs, and as I have already pointed out, the fighters wouldn't have much difference in survivability. Fighters need all this paraphernalia such as life support, cockpits, radars (or radar equivalents), and so on ans so forth. It stands to reason that a missile with the same mass as a fighter will be considerably more deadly (and actually a threat) than anything a fighter can carry.

IMO, fighters are limited, but they are NOT obsolete. I wouldn't send unsupported fighters against a capship, but if all else is equal, a capship with 100 fighters beats a capship with 0 fighters.

Also, fighting capships isn't the only thing my space fleets do. My future nation/world is having problems with space pirates, often hiding in the asteroids. I don't normally use Capital ships for pirate-hunting. Instead, I use smaller, more agile Patrol ships (12-50 man vessels), and fighter support makes much more of a difference among ships of that size.

Also, my fighters are the best ships for in-atmosphere flying.

IMO, fighters are limited, but they are NOT obsolete. I wouldn't send unsupported fighters against a capship, but if all else is equal, a capship with 100 fighters beats a capship with 0 fighters.


It's hard to dignify this one with a response. If all else is equal, then you've managed to handwave a hundred fighters into existence. Thus, we're not actually seeing equal resources. No matter how ineffective a ship is, it'll still have some effect.

An analogy. Assuming all else is equal, an army with 10 cavalry divisions beats an army without those ten extra divisions. Does this mean that cavalry are still useful in modern warfare?

ever heard of inertia and Newton's first and second?

It's hard to dignify this one with a response. If all else is equal, then you've managed to handwave a hundred fighters into existence. Thus, we're not actually seeing equal resources. No matter how ineffective a ship is, it'll still have some effect.

An analogy. Assuming all else is equal, an army with 10 cavalry divisions beats an army without those ten extra divisions. Does this mean that cavalry are still useful in modern warfare?

Frankly, I don't place fighters in the same category as horses. Also, that only addresses the question of fighters against capships, which I'll admit isn't the best use of fighters. Presumably most FT nations will do things besides toe-to-toe fights with large fleets. Tasks which fighters are better equipted to do.

I'm about to run off to work, so I won't be back for awhile. Have fun with the discussion. :)

Depends on the RPer in my view.

I use fighters extensively, and effectively, for the most part. Nothing beats a thousand targets. If my opponent sais "My uber cap ship dreadnaught of doominess targets all figters and wipes them out systematically, and in rapid succession without missing because I have (Insert targeting system/random technology here)" Then I talk to them, if they still refuse to be realistic, then I slap them on ignore.

There's my argument. It's been done before, and I have no problems doing it again.

I enjoy reading these kinds of threads for so many reasons. First, it is an educational experience. I tend to learn more from a thread like this than any other place on the forum. I will be the first to admit that I have no clue when it comes to physics and the Theory of Relativity and such like. It fascinates me to hear others who appear to know what they are talking about throw point and counter-point out as the debate rages.

Second, threads like these tend to bring people's passions to the forefront. You can always tell when someone is discussing something that they hold dear. It is actually quite inspiring.

I will also admit however, that threads such as this one also tend to be somewhat intimidating, at least to me. I realize very quickly how little I know and knowing how little I know, I generally fall back to a lurking position rather than showcase my ignorance. I enjoy a good story. I truly enjoy participating in a good story. I can only hope that I am not judged as lacking due to a dearth of practical knowledge on the subjects of relativity and astrophysics. Rather, I would hope to be mentored by those that understand these things.

Having said that, keep the discussion here going. Keep it civil but keep it going. I for one, am benefitting from the exchange.

Depends on the RPer in my view.

I use fighters extensively, and effectively, for the most part. Nothing beats a thousand targets. If my opponent sais "My uber cap ship dreadnaught of doominess targets all figters and wipes them out systematically, and in rapid succession without missing because I have (Insert targeting system/random technology here)" Then I talk to them, if they still refuse to be realistic, then I slap them on ignore.

There's my argument. It's been done before, and I have no problems doing it again.Congrats. You hereby qualify for the Greater Certificate of Awesomeness (tm).

You receive the Greater Certificate of Awesomeness (tm) for a) Completely failing to actually address any of the points in the thread, instead ranting about your particular RP policy (Without providing any argument other than 'I say it works', that is), and b) Openly admitting to ignore people when they refuse to lose their ships to an attack fleet (The fighters) with a total mass that's unlikely to be in excess of 1/10 their capship's mass (And therefore the resources invested in it).

Terrible wankers, they are.

Are you DAFT, man?! Fighters are the tanks of the party - they can take the majority of damage as well as deal a significant amount of damage back to the enemy.

Granted, some would argue that monks are far better at dealing damage, what with having their multiple hits and multipliers to attack, but they don't have nearly as much defense, especially not in the earlier stages of the game.

Without a fighter on the front lines, your black mage is a sitting duck - your white mage is using all her turns in healing the black mage - your thief has to dodge far more attacks than he would if he had a meatshield.

Fighters are a must for any FF1 party, unless you're an advanced gamer and know how to level your guys up to where they don't have to worry about defense.


C-C-C-C-C-COMBO BREAKER!

Depends on the RPer in my view.

I use fighters extensively, and effectively, for the most part. Nothing beats a thousand targets. If my opponent sais "My uber cap ship dreadnaught of doominess targets all figters and wipes them out systematically, and in rapid succession without missing because I have (Insert targeting system/random technology here)" Then I talk to them, if they still refuse to be realistic, then I slap them on ignore.

There's my argument. It's been done before, and I have no problems doing it again.

I'm not an FT player, but how is that unrealistic? That's perfectly feasible with MT technology, an E-3 Sentry's radar could do that with a couple of tweaks.

Show me these couple "tweeks".

Not even the F-14's famous 6 on 6 test wasn't completely successful, 1 target missed.

NOTHING, is perfect, never is, and never will be. I refuse to believe that anyone's technology is perfect, for it is unrealistic. As technology grows and grows, so does the technology on fighters. Who's to say that fighters do not have their own contermeasures? No one. I have plenty of FT countermeasures on my fighters, just in case I do run into that asshole who thinks his stuff is perfect.

Are you DAFT, man?! Fighters are the tanks of the party - they can take the majority of damage as well as deal a significant amount of damage back to the enemy.

Granted, some would argue that monks are far better at dealing damage, what with having their multiple hits and multipliers to attack, but they don't have nearly as much defense, especially not in the earlier stages of the game.

Without a fighter on the front lines, your black mage is a sitting duck - your white mage is using all her turns in healing the black mage - your thief has to dodge far more attacks than he would if he had a meatshield.

Fighters are a must for any FF1 party, unless you're an advanced gamer and know how to level your guys up to where they don't have to worry about defense.


C-C-C-C-C-COMBO BREAKER!

Most successful party I ever had was 2 fighters, 2 red mages. They totally annihilated everything they came up against... especially once they RMs learned haste.

I killed most of the demons in the last castle in one turn with Haste. :)

Show me these couple "tweeks".

The tweaks are just to set it to engage space based targets and to slave the guns to the radar. It can already develop a track on thousands of targets simultaneously.


Not even the F-14's famous 6 on 6 test wasn't completely successful, 1 target missed.

And when you're using light speed weapons the hit percentage climbs much higher.


NOTHING, is perfect, never is, and never will be. I refuse to believe that anyone's technology is perfect, for it is unrealistic. As technology grows and grows, so does the technology on fighters. Who's to say that fighters do not have their own contermeasures? No one. I have plenty of FT countermeasures on my fighters, just in case I do run into that asshole who thinks his stuff is perfect.

Yes, and there are countermeasures to those countermeasures. The easiest of which is simply to pump out so much power through your sensors that any fighter stealth or ECM becomes entirely irrelevant.

NOTHING, is perfect, never is, and never will be. I refuse to believe that anyone's technology is perfect, for it is unrealistic.I'm going to steal one of GMC's favourite arguments - ever seen the vast castles we protect our military bases with?

No?

That's because we did develop a perfect counter against them - indirect fire artillery (Howitzers, mortars...).

So yes, perfect counters are realistic. Something that's immune to every possible kind of equivtech attack is not (Although Merrimac & Monitor came close, albeit only for a short while), but having the means to completely, utterly turn one possible equivtech mode of attack (Or defence) into a pointless endeavour is not.

Now, I'm not saying that your fighters would inevitably fail - for starters, I don't know enough - or indeed, anything - about them (Their technology & tactics) to make such a judgement. But, considering all the things mentioned in this thread by me, HT, Hakurabi, and others, I don't consider your odds to be particularly good ones.

And your odds to have them more effective than an equal number/mass of missiles are flat-out catastrophic.

It all strikes as a matter of personal preference, whether one uses fightercraft or not is simply based on a desire to do so.

Seems to me though that some folks who believe that fighters are completely worthless against larger vessels because 'They Have Smaller Guns' or 'They would be too easily targeted' and whatnot, are operating under a rather specific assumption: that all Fighters are the same... that these fightercraft are all in some narrow description that does not vary from design to design.

Who's to say that a fightercraft does not have some form of charged shot that can match a burst fired from a capital ship's main battery? Who's to say that a fightercraft is little more than a sluggish glorified mini-destroyer or some randomized other thing? Who's to say what the fighter's offensive and defensive capabilities are?

You'll have to pardon me if I note that all that falls under the perview of the fellow what introduced the fightercraft.

The tactical and strategic usefulness of small, relatively cheap and relatively expendable fast attack craft, be they called fighters or something else, makes it very unlikely fighters would be obsolete as a concept in FT.

They might not be able to take on major warships without a huge disparity in numbers, but they certainly could and would be useful for attacking fixed targets like planets and bases, sweeping through and wiping out merchant traffic, hitting orbital facilities that are inadequately protected, escort duties, patrol and recon duties and a host of other roles.

Think of cavalry during World War II.. it was vulnerable to artillery and machine gun fire when mounted, but the Soviets used it very effectively until the end of the war. They found ways to employ that made use of its operational mobility, particularly in terrain that motorized vehicles had trouble with, and then used it as dismounted infantry with a lot of submachineguns and mortars. On occasion they also used it in its traditional role of slaughtering a retreating enemy. Not to mention scouting etc.

This in a war were the tank and self propelled artillery were considered king of the battlefield and aircraft became a decisive weapon of war.

So even relatively obsolete military forces can be extremely useful if properly employed.

Hey, what ever you guys say. You guys must be Army corp Engineers, nuclear physicists and chemists, masters at Future Tech design and implementation, and all around total genuises at everything you do.

But me, I am just a normal guy that loves to RP. I run into a person who feels that their tech wank is more important than good RP, well, let's just say I don't RP with them for very long.

RP vs Technology. You want to be the guy that wins everytime and has a counter to everything, go ahead. I prefer to RP, as realistically as possible, and as fun as possible. Fighters wizzing around, gunning down other aircraft, making strafing runs on enemy capitol ships is just freaking cool to me.

I am sorry to have ever defied you, masters.

You could act less like Jesus on the cross and accept the fact that any attacks you've suffered have been due to your own ignoring the question asked. Some of this gets down to common sense, some of it more advanced technicalities which requires more than the most basic of knowledge of fighter craft, the rest is not assuming everything in a video game = realistic. Points have been laid out as to why fighters would be obsolete in their traditional role when introduced in FT, but I don't see anyone refuting them, or even just acknowledging them. Patience just must be at an all time low today.

I'm going to steal one of GMC's favourite arguments - ever seen the vast castles we protect our military bases with?

No?

That's because we did develop a perfect counter against them - indirect fire artillery (Howitzers, mortars...).

So yes, perfect counters are realistic. Something that's immune to every possible kind of equivtech attack is not (Although Merrimac & Monitor came close, albeit only for a short while), but having the means to completely, utterly turn one possible equivtech mode of attack (Or defence) into a pointless endeavour is not.

Now, I'm not saying that your fighters would inevitably fail - for starters, I don't know enough - or indeed, anything - about them (Their technology & tactics) to make such a judgement. But, considering all the things mentioned in this thread by me, HT, Hakurabi, and others, I don't consider your odds to be particularly good ones.

And your odds to have them more effective than an equal number/mass of missiles are flat-out catastrophic.

Might I be permitted to ask if you think that all FT fightercraft are still the exact same as the various Modern Tech fighters we see roaming around today? The reason I ask is because your concept of the 'Perfect Defense' seems centered around the thing I mentioned in my previous post: That all fighters are, if not the same, then uncannily similar.

Your perfect defense would be useful against one type of fighter utilizing one mode of attack or one particular strategy. FT, as I would hope we all know, is eminently varied, and attempting to create a 'perfect defense' against one thing is roughly tantamount to playing russian roulette with five loaded bullets. If somebody comes at you in a manner that your 'perfect defense' cannot defend perfectly against, you're shit outta luck.

Sure, equivalently sized missiles might be equally effective for the one use that missiles have, but fighters do have reusability on their side. Both could be targeted by point-defense if necessary, and who knows, maybe Fighters would be capable of knocking out the missiles as they travel to whatever target they're after.

Again, it all depends on the nature of the beast.

... It's safe to say that by 'fighter' we mean that which is seen in games like Homeworld or Freespace, things that are direct descendants of modern day fighters. If you're referring to something that is built, and behaves in an entirely different manner, then it's not accurate to call it a fighter. Plus this seems to flat out ignore everything already said about fighters given equivalent technology.

It doesn't matter what tech you use, as long as you're beefy enough to stand against most other FT powers in II (given that neither side discusses anything first but just jumps in and starts giving off descriptions of their technology) then anything you can put on a fighter, you can put on a missile and come out ahead with that. The inverse is also true: anything you need to put on a fighter you don't need to install on a missile, thereby saying you money, and the cost of losing trained pilots. Course, this was all hit on before, but no one responded to that then, so I am probably wasting my time reiterating it now.

Who's to say that a fightercraft does not have some form of charged shot that can match a burst fired from a capital ship's main battery?The capship having the same technology available & thus managing more powerful charged shots, given a larger gun volume?

There's of course the possibility that fireweapons went well ahead of protective measures - problem with this is, if that's the case, how the fuck do you produce the energy for the shot, or how to you save it before firing? If it kills any given armour material with relatively little efford, it'll do the same with reactors or whatever replaces capacitors. Unless it's a beam that causes all matter it hits to spontaneously annihilate with antimatter efficiency - wonder how many people would accept that...

Who's to say that a fightercraft is little more than a sluggish glorified mini-destroyer or some randomized other thing?Call it a gunboat?

Which would, by and large, suffer the same problems, anyway, but hey...

Who's to say what the fighter's offensive and defensive capabilities are?Nobody is. But logic dictates that a larger amount of equivtech material > a smaller amount of the same. Your wishes wont have any more of an effect on this than the Flat Earth' Society's rants have on ur planet's geoid shape.

Hey, what ever you guys say. You guys must be Army corp Engineers, nuclear physicists and chemists, masters at Future Tech design and implementation, and all around total genuises at everything you do.

But me, I am just a normal guy that loves to RP. I run into a person who feels that their tech wank is more important than good RP, well, let's just say I don't RP with them for very long.

RP vs Technology. You want to be the guy that wins everytime and has a counter to everything, go ahead. I prefer to RP, as realistically as possible, and as fun as possible. Fighters wizzing around, gunning down other aircraft, making strafing runs on enemy capitol ships is just freaking cool to me.

I am sorry to have ever defied you, masters.Congrats. You really are incapable of reading. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12422415&postcount=64)

If you just want to whine about how RP doesn't have to recognise basic logic, do it in a thread that isn't concerned with the feasibility of any given concept. And while you're at it, maybe you want to post about the little hobbit who took over the deathstar on his own, and became grand emperor of the multiverse, because his little finger powered planetkilling blasts that could annihilate galaxies in a second flat.

Seriously. If the whole purpose of your posts is to whine and to completely ignore the subject & purpose of a given thread, it's better you don't post at all.

Maybe you want to read the original post in this thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12414942&postcount=1)? Notice the use of the words 'Physicist' (Suggesting a ratio- rather than faith (In this case, 'I like to RP them') based approach) and the use of very much physical terms and variables ('Vacuum', Gravity', 'Friction'), once more suggesting that the intend is an objective discussion, not 'Boohoo, I wanna play them!' posts oozing depression. We all know that one can use fighter regardless, for fun. Nobody is disagreeing with the notion. But this notion isn't the subject of this thread.

And amazingly, I believe my first post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12415558&postcount=31) tentatively agreed with Wanderjar (Although I suspect I suggested a rather more limited field of actions than he had in mind). But your whining's just horrendously... Well, sad, and completely out of place.

Stop it.

]Might I be permitted to ask if you think that all FT fightercraft are still the exact same as the various Modern Tech fighters we see roaming around today?Obviously not. For starters, I assume a lack of unnecessary wing area, vastly increased velocity, a stronger emphasis on direct fire weapons, rather than missiles ('s far as interception-of-ordnance duties go), namely (Near)c weaponry, significantly decreased reaction times via the use of augments, direct neural interfaces, or AI (Or combinations thereof)... That's the main differences that come to mind right now.

This doesn't change the inherent disadvantages that are lower volume (Less firepower) & mass (Inferior armour), nor that they're still operating in the same medium the capships are operating it, negating all the advantages RL fighters have over ships or tanks.

The reason I ask is because your concept of the 'Perfect Defense' seems centered around the thing I mentioned in my previous post: That all fighters are, if not the same, then uncannily similar.Try reading my post(s) again. I didn't argue that fighters can inherently be defended against with 100% success - you might have noticed my previous posts (Well, actually, no, you didn't, and operate udner completely false assumptions, but hey), where I a) suggested that there's some niches for fighters remaining and b) that I consider them inferior to missiles when it comes to attacking capships (As for the reasons, see aforementioned, previous posts). Not that I consider them incapable of causing any damage at all.

I was merely refuting Azaha's claim that nothing is ever working perfect against something else - successfully, I believe.

Oh reading, what a beautiful skill it is. Alas, it's not very widespread, or so it seems.

Your perfect defense would be useful against one type of fighter utilizing one mode of attack or one particular strategy.Well, my defence isn't perfect (Though, I strongly suggest to keep fighters at least .2 lightseconds from a tactical ship, and launching bombgraser ordnance or really fast missiles from a vector directly opposite to mine), so that point's moot, ne?

This said, no. Anti-fighter defences will generally be effective against every craft that falls into the 'Fighter' category, because they all, superficially different as they might be, will always feature some basic, common traits (Low mass, little energy), and be made for some basic, common purpose (Interception duties, carrying ordnance). They will therefore only have a limited number of tactics available to fulfill their objective - and while there is indeed a significant variety of tactics, they all fall within the opportunities above basic parameters offer.

Nothing else.

This is, after all, why the general category 'Fighter' exists. ANd this is also why we counter new fighters with new SAMs - we don't randomly invent a completely new, formerly unthinkable system. Lets say, a bunny catapult. The principle of the defensive measures stays the same, only the details change.

FT, as I would hope we all know, is eminently varied, and attempting to create a 'perfect defense' against one thing is roughly tantamount to playing russian roulette with five loaded bullets. If somebody comes at you in a manner that your 'perfect defense' cannot defend perfectly against, you're shit outta luck.No, it isn't. All fightercraft, regardless of their technology base, must work with abovementioned restrictions. If a handful of fighters is capable of overpowering a 62.5 mio tonne ship, then I've lost the war regardless of whether fighters are used or not, because the opponent in question is capable of featuring energy densities at least tens of thousands of times ahead of my own. Similarly, if some twink-technology is used without sheer wattage being involved, I've lost the war regardless of whether fighters are used or not, because I don't possess this technology.

This is why we are arguing about EquivTech scenarios in the first place - they're the only way to come to an objective result.

Hell, I've written a post about this problem before. In this thread, no less. But apparently...

Sure, equivalently sized missiles might be equally effective for the one use that missiles have, but fighters do have reusability on their side. Both could be targeted by point-defense if necessary, and who knows, maybe Fighters would be capable of knocking out the missiles as they travel to whatever target they're after.Okay, I'll admit it. Right now, I'm simply pissed.

Mostly because of this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12415558&postcount). Note the last bit of the post.

Now, what roles could a 'Fighter' (I use the term loosely - they'd be rather different from RL ones) - regardless of whether it's manned or equivalent to an autonomous UACV - still have?

Fighters, although incapable of effectively hurting capships, should have enough punch to break through missiles. Consider them a means to increase the range of your point defence
If you happen to like not cracking continents and eradicating all life from the planets you may conquer, a means to enforce aerospace superiority in sub-orbital altitudes is nifty. Particularly when your spaceships' PD guns have issues with penetrating an atmosphere ('Realistic' ones, I.e. high-frequency lasers & particle beams, do). Unless your shield-technology is seriously twinky, anyway

Conclusion: 'Fighters' resume having an interceptor-esque role - not a big one, but still. Indeed, given that the other side will likely want to protect its missiles from 'Mobile Point Defence', it'll probably shepherd its missiles with something that deals with your 'Fighters'. And thus give you a good chance to still have manly and testostere-loaded fighter vs. fighter battles (Though, dogfighting remains exceedingly unlikely). Just, for the love of god - human neurons transmit information at about 200 m/s. At velocities somewhere between 3 & 30000 km/s, a baseline human is absurdly unlikely to score a hit. Use either swarm tactics with centrally coordinated firing vectors, or AI (Not sapient AI. Just... A numbercrunching algorithm).

Ideally, use both.

Why, thanks for telling me exactly what I said myself days ago. Really, thanks. I'd already forgotten.

... It's safe to say that by 'fighter' we mean that which is seen in games like Homeworld or Freespace, things that are direct descendants of modern day fighters. If you're referring to something that is built, and behaves in an entirely different manner, then it's not accurate to call it a fighter. Plus this seems to flat out ignore everything already said about fighters given equivalent technology.

Or Wing Commander, or Freelancer... you know, where one fighter has the capacity to blow the shit out of a capship with relatively little effort. Just because something might operate differently does not inherently change its effective designation. A fighter is what the RPer makes of it. A fighter is what the person putting them out makes of it. Just because it operates differently than what YOU think it should does not mean it instantly becomes a corvette or a light frigate or something else.

It doesn't matter what tech you use, as long as you're beefy enough to stand against most other FT powers in II (given that neither side discusses anything first but just jumps in and starts giving off descriptions of their technology) then anything you can put on a fighter, you can put on a missile and come out ahead with that.

For the one use you have of that missile, you should say. Its mission scope is rather limited, and if it fails it is generally impossible to get it back and refuel it for another go. And if that missile is the same size as the fighter, it can get blown the hell up in the exact same manner. In the case of missiles, the tactics are almost universally the same: the missile has to get close, so point-defense can snip that tip right quick, while Fighters might have weaponry that allows them to stay a relatively safe distance away.

The inverse is also true: anything you need to put on a fighter you don't need to install on a missile, thereby saying you money, and the cost of losing trained pilots. Course, this was all hit on before, but no one responded to that then, so I am probably wasting my time reiterating it now.

Of course, all the costs of building that missile that you may well save in comparison from a fightercraft assumes that you fully expect a fightercraft to be incapable of returning as soon as it departs the launch bay. A fightercraft has reusability on its side, a missile does not. Whatever you save in making that missile goes right out the window with having to make a new one.

I talked to a friend of mine today about it and he brought up a point I feel needs to be addressed. A fighter, was not designed to attack battleships, as they would get seriously hurt or destroyed as many have stated here. But they were made to counter bombers. An enemy sends out bombers, you counter with fighters. Then, you send fighters to counter their fighters. And to distract them, you send out bombers. Then, we have our large clusterfuck of a battle. Essentially, thats what they are used for. So, if your opponent doesn't have any fighters, why deploy them? They just blow the crap out of them, even if it's just filling space with weaponry, it's bound to kill a lot of people. And that is cost effective.

Which brings me to my next question. I asked earlier, would it be better to havd just more advanced point defense systems, drone like A.I. fighters, or just more missiles, instead of fighters?

Or Wing Commander, or Freelancer... you know, where one fighter has the capacity to blow the shit out of a capship with relatively little effort. Just because something might operate differently does not inherently change its effective designation. A fighter is what the RPer makes of it. A fighter is what the person putting them out makes of it. Just because it operates differently than what YOU think it should does not mean it instantly becomes a corvette or a light frigate or something else.

You mean those things that behave in the exact same capacity as I just described? Those things that (as I have said already if you had bothered reading any previous posts) can't really do what the game coders think they can do? Assuming equivalent tech, which is what we've done long before you waltzed in, fighters < capships. Sorry, but that's the way it is.

And btw, we call things that behave differently from another thing a different name. I don't call a canoe a battleship just because I feel like it: it's a little something called communication, and you know, doing it effectively. If you're talking about something other than a fighter, then talk about it in another thread.

For the one use you have of that missile, you should say. Its mission scope is rather limited, and if it fails it is generally impossible to get it back and refuel it for another go. And if that missile is the same size as the fighter, it can get blown the hell up in the exact same manner. In the case of missiles, the tactics are almost universally the same: the missile has to get close, so point-defense can snip that tip right quick, while Fighters might have weaponry that allows them to stay a relatively safe distance away.

I won't bother going over this, because I and others have already covered it. Read previous posts if you're going to respond like this.



Of course, all the costs of building that missile that you may well save in comparison from a fightercraft assumes that you fully expect a fightercraft to be incapable of returning as soon as it departs the launch bay. A fightercraft has reusability on its side, a missile does not. Whatever you save in making that missile goes right out the window with having to make a new one.

Read above.

I'm not even an FT RPer.

But I'll give my $0.02 on the debate.

Are you going to consider these in Naval or Air force terminology, no more switching back and forth whenever it suits your needs.

For naval terms:
Gunboat/PT boat:
In WW2, American PT boats patroled the solomon islands and pretty much made unescorted Japanese landings a suicide mission, even at night time, even in extremely shallow water.

These boats also acted as fast transports, as they were used to haul McArthur off of the Philipeans only hours before Japanese forces completely PWNed the area.

They packed a punch comparable to a capital ship (torpedoes), could sit and wait like a mine, give weather reports, carry VIP passengers, rescue downed pilots and survivors of sunken ships, and support amphibious landing and Marine Raider operations.

And in space, there is no such stealthy things as submarines, so the best you can do is hide behind something bigger than you until they get within range.

Yes, very useless indeed...

Air force fighter jocks:
Aircraft can hold airspace, and their pressence means that the enemy does not control that particular bit of airspace. If for nothing else, these planes could be used as fast, cheap, almost expendable scouts.

Small aircraft make infinitely better CAS for your men on the ground, if you choose to take the ground rather than slag/glass it.

Both:
Gunboats and 'fighters' could operate from smaller airfields/ports, in fact, the PT base at Tulagi was just an open stretch of beach thast the boats would run up on at high tide. And many CAS and some fighter planes take off from improvised airstrips and highways.

I'd like to see a super-dread or Strategic bomber try that...
I'd also like to see heavy bombers replace interceptors.
And a Battleship to operate in shallow waters to pick up a SEAL team, In North Korea...

Simply, when building a new base, the first residents of organic Navy/Air support would be in the form of these tiny craft simply because there wouldn't be the capacity to operat anything bigger.
On a more sace related thing, distorted or excessive fields of gravity and tight spaces may preclude the use of large craft.

The capship having the same technology available & thus managing more powerful charged shots, given a larger gun volume?

Charged shots against fighters being damn near useless of course. I suppose one COULD target a fighter with the Death Star superlaser... not a very efficient use of resources tho.

There's of course the possibility that fireweapons went well ahead of protective measures - problem with this is, if that's the case, how the fuck do you produce the energy for the shot, or how to you save it before firing? If it kills any given armour material with relatively little efford, it'll do the same with reactors or whatever replaces capacitors. Unless it's a beam that causes all matter it hits to spontaneously annihilate with antimatter efficiency - wonder how many people would accept that...

I dunno, I sorta went with a megaman principle on that. Generally in the form of "While charging, you can't shoot normal shit." Greater firepower, reduced rate of fire and whatnot.

Call it a gunboat?

Which would, by and large, suffer the same problems, anyway, but hey...

No. I choose to call it a *drumroll* HEAVY fighter. Hup. Wait. Yeah. Heavy Fighter. God forbid I should organize forces differently than you.

Obviously not. For starters, I assume a lack of unnecessary wing area, vastly increased velocity, a stronger emphasis on direct fire weapons, rather than missiles ('s far as interception-of-ordnance duties go), namely (Near)c weaponry, significantly decreased reaction times via the use of augments, direct neural interfaces, or AI (Or combinations thereof)... That's the main differences that come to mind right now.

This doesn't change the inherent disadvantages that are lower volume (Less firepower) & mass (Inferior armour), nor that they're still operating in the same medium the capships are operating it, negating all the advantages RL fighters have over ships or tanks.

Relativistic distances and greater mobility than the larger vessels are something to consider as well. Scale is an oft-overlooked part of FT combat. If squadrons of fightercraft and a single capship are sitting a couple light-seconds or so apart from each other, the fightercraft would be at a significant advantage simply because they can more easily move out of the way of the capship's fire even if such munitions can travel at the speed of light. Even more so if FTL sensors are invoked. Call me crazy but I suspect that the capship would not be capable of getting out of the way as easily as the fighters could. The fighters might not be scoring precision hits, but I'd bet they'd be hitting more Capship than the Capship hits fighters.

Try reading my post(s) again. I didn't argue that fighters can inherently be defended against with 100% success - you might have noticed my previous posts (Well, actually, no, you didn't, and operate udner completely false assumptions, but hey), where I a) suggested that there's some niches for fighters remaining and b) that I consider them inferior to missiles when it comes to attacking capships (As for the reasons, see aforementioned, previous posts). Not that I consider them incapable of causing any damage at all.

They can operate in any niche their originator wishes. Again, just because they're fightercraft does not necessarily mean they're exactly the same as whatever you consider fightercraft.

And sure, for the one hit you'll get out of a missile I would agree that it is more 'effective' than a fighter at damaging a capship. Of course, again we fall into the notion that a fighter can put out sustained fire, doing more damage over time than a missile can in its one lone explosive use.

I was merely refuting Azaha's claim that nothing is ever working perfect against something else - successfully, I believe.

Oh reading, what a beautiful skill it is. Alas, it's not very widespread, or so it seems.

Indeed, you should learn it sometime.

So yes, perfect counters are realistic. Something that's immune to every possible kind of equivtech attack is not (Although Merrimac & Monitor came close, albeit only for a short while), but having the means to completely, utterly turn one possible equivtech mode of attack (Or defence) into a pointless endeavour is not.

Is what I was responding to, and particularly towards the notion that a 'perfect defense' against any one thing is infeasible in FT. I was not arguing against your position that one cannot be perfectly defended against everything, I was arguing that truth be told why in the bloody hell should one go to the trouble of perfectly defending himself against ONE thing?

Better to be decently defended against everything than perfectly defended against one thing and be shit outta luck when somebody does something that your defense does not account for.

Well, my defence isn't perfect (Though, I strongly suggest to keep fighters at least .2 lightseconds from a tactical ship, and launching bombgraser ordnance or really fast missiles from a vector directly opposite to mine), so that point's moot, ne?

This said, no. Anti-fighter defences will generally be effective against every craft that falls into the 'Fighter' category, because they all, superficially different as they might be, will always feature some basic, common traits (Low mass, little energy), and be made for some basic, common purpose (Interception duties, carrying ordnance). They will therefore only have a limited number of tactics available to fulfill their objective - and while there is indeed a significant variety of tactics, they all fall within the opportunities above basic parameters offer.

Nothing else.

This is, after all, why the general category 'Fighter' exists. ANd this is also why we counter new fighters with new SAMs - we don't randomly invent a completely new, formerly unthinkable system. Lets say, a bunny catapult. The principle of the defensive measures stays the same, only the details change.

And why others counter new SAMs with new fighters or countermeasures. The arms race never ends.

No, it isn't. All fightercraft, regardless of their technology base, must work with abovementioned restrictions.

No they mustn't. YOUR fightercraft would fall under such restrictions because they're YOUR restrictions. People build things and strategize differently. What some might see as a fighter, might be seen by others as a corvette or a gunboat. It might be more sluggish than other 'fighters' but more durable at the same time and capable of putting out a heftier punch.

If a handful of fighters is capable of overpowering a 62.5 mio tonne ship, then I've lost the war regardless of whether fighters are used or not, because the opponent in question is capable of featuring energy densities at least tens of thousands of times ahead of my own. Similarly, if some twink-technology is used without sheer wattage being involved, I've lost the war regardless of whether fighters are used or not, because I don't possess this technology.

This is why we are arguing about EquivTech scenarios in the first place - they're the only way to come to an objective result.

Hell, I've written a post about this problem before. In this thread, no less. But apparently...

>quote by me<

Okay, I'll admit it. Right now, I'm simply pissed.

Getting worked up over pixels, are we? Tsk. EquivTech does not mean that everybody operates under the exact same principles. Sure the enemy might have the same 'level' of technology than you, but he also might organize differently. He might have a different cultural outlook or some random other thing. Who knows, maybe their definition of a 'Fighter' might be some freaky little pod with a ramped up engine built entirely for the purpose of dragging several fighter-sized missiles within striking distance, letting loose, then booking it back to the mothership in order to reload for another pass. That could be their definition of a fighter, a fighter-bomber, missile platform, or any number of other things.

PT boats were not what the popular mythology would have you believe. Post war analysis showed that they were a complete waste of money. They and their modern descendents, the FAC, are nothing but easy targets.

You mean those things that behave in the exact same capacity as I just described? Those things that (as I have said already if you had bothered reading any previous posts) can't really do what the game coders think they can do? Assuming equivalent tech, which is what we've done long before you waltzed in, fighters < capships. Sorry, but that's the way it is.

Nor did I seek to refute that. It seems to have become a matter of to what degree, however.

And btw, we call things that behave differently from another thing a different name.

By we you mean you. My whole point is that others can have different applications placed on their 'fighters' that might actually make them better equipped to deal with capships. A single well-aimed shot from the capship might be enough to whack the 'fighter' in one shot, but that fighter might also be capable of dealing significant harm to that capship at the sacrifice of not being able to skirmish, and the opposite would also be true with fighters specialized towards dogfighting and less focused on laying the smackdown on the big gunz.

I don't call a canoe a battleship just because I feel like it: it's a little something called communication, and you know, doing it effectively. If you're talking about something other than a fighter, then talk about it in another thread.

No. Again, your whim does not mark the exact overriding definition of a fighter.

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

On another note, I will agree with Telros' friend's assertion about what fighters were useful for originally. Of course, since that time, fightercraft have evolved dramatically, taking on new objectives as situations change. Those original WWII fighters did not have much in the way of missiles and whatnot, and at the same time so too have other military units.

Well, they may have adapted but they remain the same, as in their purpose, to counter enemy bombers, and to an extent, fighters. Of course, depending on HOW you change them, they can do other things. They are both fighters and bombers, or they are good for strafing runs, anti-fighter, etc etc. Anyways, I am not that smart, nor do I like to be overwhelmed with things. So, I try to keep my tech simple, straight, and to the point. If you guys like to explain it in c.frac and joule terms, thats fine. Just be ready to explain it in simple terms to me. =P.

Now, I want ANYONE's opinion on this. Say if you just were DYING to replace your fighters, what would you replace it with?

Nor did I seek to refute that. It seems to have become a matter of to what degree, however.

You mean that which was determined to be irrelevant? Good job there.

By we you mean you. My whole point is that others can have different applications placed on their 'fighters' that might actually make them better equipped to deal with capships. A single well-aimed shot from the capship might be enough to whack the 'fighter' in one shot, but that fighter might also be capable of dealing significant harm to that capship at the sacrifice of not being able to skirmish, and the opposite would also be true with fighters specialized towards dogfighting and less focused on laying the smackdown on the big gunz.

By we I mean the majority of the human race that has even basic skills in communication. Of course given your past history holding you to this expectation is a little much, but still, I try to be generous. Also the situation you described can be better accomplished by a missile. making any success int he situation your described both A) More Costly and B) based entirely on luck. Of course, most of us with that big pink organ in our skulls don't base our entire military around pieces of machinery that are so expensive, and so unpredictable, that a spear-armed native from the colonial period would be more effective than anything else in our entire stockpile.

No. Again, your whim does not mark the exact overriding definition of a fighter.

If it isn't a fighter, then it isn't a fighter. I won't entertain your notion of linguistic relativism because you think such an argument has any merit.

On another note, I will agree with Telros' friend's assertion about what fighters were useful for originally. Of course, since that time, fightercraft have evolved dramatically, taking on new objectives as situations change. Those original WWII fighters did not have much in the way of missiles and whatnot, and at the same time so too have other military units.

How this is relevant is a question that I can ask about everything you've said since you decided to inject yourself into the discussion, like a ranting noob in an RP that has already progressed well beyond the point of his entry being acceptable. Good job there.

Exactly how were you planning to compel obedience to your ultra-strict opinions, ElectronX? It's kind of hard to force people to do things they don't want to do when it comes to free-form.

Electron, you seriously need to settle down. Did'ya know this is a peaceful OOC discussion, not a full-blown argument thread? Might want to consult that.

In the next pass of time...

The "pull tech figures out of whatever book they came from" is not going to sway a lot of RPers (I happen to be one of those). A lot of us would rather simply write a good storyline that crap on with numbers, equations, and physics theorms generally relegated to the university lab. Not only does that totally destroy the flow of writing (how many two-page long number explanations or logic reasoning do you see in good works of fiction? Very very few), but it also serves the point of boring the crap outta those of us trying to do something called fun (if fun to you is doing the above explained actions, then I feel really sorry for you.)

All in all:

Does it really even matter whether they're obsolete or not? A big reason for the incredible popularity of Star Wars was the fighter-the X-Wing practically defined space combat in the first movie, and captivated the minds and imagination of audiences. That being said, to each his own: if you don't like fighters, don't use them. But don't try to force the rest of us who like detailing the exploits of all points of a fleet to come into compliance with your views.

And Disclaimer: This, folks, is what we like to call an opinion, not fact, which some of you have been mixing up.

PT boats were not what the popular mythology would have you believe. Post war analysis showed that they were a complete waste of money. They and their modern descendents, the FAC, are nothing but easy targets.

Notice, I never said anything along the lines of 'PT boat PWNed the Jap Navy'

In fact, it is true they were rather pices of crap in comparission to a [Torpedo Boat] Destroyer.

But get one up against a lone troop barge or beached submarine, or when you simply cannot feld anything better, then the story changes very quickly.

The PT boats escaped from the Pearl harbour bombing unscratched because they were not deemed a valuable enough target. These boats then went scurrying about the harbour picking up survivors from the oily and sometime flaming waters.

PT boats where used in 'The Slot' because the allies didn't have sufficient numbers of destroyers after their mess up off Savo Island, and submarines would have been sitting ducks. And the aircraft carriers were needed elsewhere.

The rivine boats of Vietnam were used simply because nothing else could cruise upriver and stop for long periods of time to check every single sampan for insurgents along the way. Essentailly, these were waterborne police cruisers with 'big guns' (a 40 mm, and some HMGs).
---
Plus, when a PT boat sunk a destroyer, it was considered a major victory, and when a pair of PTs would harrass a few Japanese barges, one could easily get detailed accounts ofwhat happened, and frequently could be embellished so that it would include a bit about one of the Sgt.s jumping in the enemy boat with nothing but a grenade and a tommy gun... Or the occasional story of how a torpedo hit the wooden hull, punched a 21" diameter hole clean through it, but failed to explode.
(Plus there was the account of the submarine sunk in less than 50 feet of water, conning tower protruding, you might still be able to find it)

They make great stories. And great stories for the media make great recruitment and propoganda. Even when you are loosing the war... The mythology surrounding the PT boat was intentional. But it was never false.

And regardless, a PT boat, though not effective, is far from useless.
I still dare to see someone regularily run their destroyer aground on a beach for maintnance.

You know what? The fact is, most people base their idea of how an FT fleet works, not on the hard physics, but on a concept; usually a concept either from sci-fi, or from history.
My fleet is largely based on a pre-WW2 concept, so strike craft (fighters and bombers) have use, but are somewhat unrpoven, and battleships still have a very important role.
Other people operate on different concepts; some people try to base their RPing on physics, or at least tweak physics as little as possible.
All it really needs is a bit of good will from people actually involved in an RP. If you're prepared to RP well, with a bit of consideration, then you can handle either fighters or no fighters. No biggie.

You mean that which was determined to be irrelevant? Good job there.

Not irrelevant. Highly relevant to the discussion at hand. The simple matter is that you keep attempting to enforce your definition of what constitutes a fighter on everybody else. The point I am trying to make is that neither you nor Der Angst are the overriding authority on what makes a fighter a fighter, especially when even the definition itself is mutable enough that attempting to place some form of convention on it when the very USE of fightercraft in FT is considered a matter of personal choice and as such is little more than an RP quirk that should be worked with rather than contested.

I never said anything about fighters being inherently superior to capital ships of whatever measure, simply that Fighters can be specialized into any number of things based on whatever tech they operate with. Even EquivTech can make accomodations along these lines.

If it isn't a fighter, then it isn't a fighter.

That distinction is not yours to make. Linguistic relativism is more pertinent here than you realize, as personal choice is, as I mentioned earlier, the focal consideration of this issue. Somebody might choose to use no fighters at all in combat engagements, while another might focus on swarms of fightercraft so varied in their applications that they could very well function as a fleet of larger vessels. That's their choice, not yours. It is not what they RP with, but how they RP with it, that determines acceptability.

How this is relevant is a question that I can ask about everything you've said since you decided to inject yourself into the discussion, like a ranting noob in an RP that has already progressed well beyond the point of his entry being acceptable. Good job there.

I don't give a shit. I was talking to somebody else at that point and they saw pertinence in it. In such a case, whether you believe it is relevant or not... is irrelevant.

Not irrelevant. Highly relevant to the discussion at hand. The simple matter is that you keep attempting to enforce your definition of what constitutes a fighter on everybody else. The point I am trying to make is that neither you nor Der Angst are the overriding authority on what makes a fighter a fighter, especially when even the definition itself is mutable enough that attempting to place some form of convention on it when the very USE of fightercraft in FT is considered a matter of personal choice and as such is little more than an RP quirk that should be worked with rather than contested.

Guess why I'm doing that? Because the thread is about the viability of the traditional fighter concept in NS FT. So no wonder I would so strictly define something in a thread that is based around a strict definition, of course you'd have to read the thread and the posts in it to pick that up, but as was previously proven: such is too much to ask of you, apparently.

This also brings up an interesting point: that no actual refutations of our definitions of what a fighter is (since the thread revolves around that, just a reminder since you need them so) in all the time that people have bothered posting here. So I accept the concession.

I never said anything about fighters being inherently superior to capital ships of whatever measure, simply that Fighters can be specialized into any number of things based on whatever tech they operate with. Even EquivTech can make accomodations along these lines.

And I can give a Jouster a lance with an anti-tank grenade taped to the end, capable of taking out any tank in the world. Does that mean that the Jouster should be used in place of an anti-tank grenade launcher? reductio ad absurdum, your logic leads to absurd results.

That distinction is not yours to make. Linguistic relativism is more pertinent here than you realize, as personal choice is, as I mentioned earlier, the focal consideration of this issue. Somebody might choose to use no fighters at all in combat engagements, while another might focus on swarms of fightercraft so varied in their applications that they could very well function as a fleet of larger vessels. That's their choice, not yours. It is not what they RP with, but how they RP with it, that determines acceptability.

Relativistic arguments are welcome in debates that do not have a formal structure precluding them from being used. In debates with a pre-defined structure, relativism goes out the window. And guess what, and I'll say this slowly: this is exactly that type of debate, discussion, or what have you. Read what I said over a few times. Read it nice and carefully and wait for that headache to come, signaling your inability to grasp this undeniable fact earlier.

I don't give a shit. I was talking to somebody else at that point and they saw pertinence in it. In such a case, whether you believe it is relevant or not... is irrelevant.

Considering the position you argue from (where you don't read anything already posted here) I could see how you'd find it relevant, but guess what: it's not. Now run along and don't come back until you've actually bothered to read what's already been posted here.

Guess why I'm doing that? Because the thread is about the viability of the traditional fighter concept in NS FT. So no wonder I would so strictly define something in a thread that is based around a strict definition, of course you'd have to read the thread and the posts in it to pick that up, but as was previously proven: such is too much to ask of you, apparently.
Um, you are being a bit presumptous, since he apparently has read the thread in order to reply to a previous arguement within said thread.

It takes some head scratching to figure out how you could miss that.

The term 'fighter' in any terminology, is rather vague at best. In FT, it reffers to small spacecraft (with crews of less than 5, heavy armarment, and very little if any cargo capacity)

This also brings up an interesting point: that no actual refutations of our definitions of what a fighter is (since the thread revolves around that, just a reminder since you need them so) in all the time that people have bothered posting here. So I accept the concession.
Yep, no refutations whatsoever.
Try reading more closely.
And this time, notice the refutations rather than ignore them.

And I can give a Jouster a lance with an anti-tank grenade taped to the end, capable of taking out any tank in the world. Does that mean that the Jouster should be used in place of an anti-tank grenade launcher? reductio ad absurdum, your logic leads to absurd results.
Not surprisingly, such a weapon was developed in the 1940's...
When the infrastructure to make or maintain RPGs was destroyed.

So actually, the question is, would you use tha AT lance, or your bare fists?

Relativistic arguments are welcome in debates that do not have a formal structure precluding them from being used. In debates with a pre-defined structure, relativism goes out the window. And guess what, and I'll say this slowly: this is exactly that type of debate, discussion, or what have you. Read what I said over a few times. Read it nice and carefully and wait for that headache to come, signaling your inability to grasp this undeniable fact earlier.
This is NOT a High school debate club meet.

There were no rules of who gets to speak when and about what and no time specificly allocted for cross examination.

This is a discussion of what YOU (plural tense) think about the viability of small fighter planes zipping around the FT universe like flies on a hot summer day.

Considering the position you argue from (where you don't read anything already posted here) I could see how you'd find it relevant, but guess what: it's not. Now run along and don't come back until you've actually bothered to read what's already been posted here.
This last bit was spurred by your insistance to reply to a response not directed towards you, you then outright called him a noob for giving his opinion on a matter and compare it to crashing a closed RP.

Most of your most recent reply is complaining that one person doesn't share you point of view, now you have two.
--
Really, both you and Godular are acting childish.
You've had your say and he's had his.

Um, you are being a bit presumptous, since he apparently has read the thread in order to reply to a previous arguement within said thread.

Of course this disregards the fact that I am A) being sarcastic in that I find his responses to be wholly inadequate or that B) he's reading but not comprehending anything. I can read Arabic but that doesn't mean I know what it means.

It takes some head scratching to figure out how you could miss that.

See what I said above and consider it before you try whipping out more sardonic witticisms.

The term 'fighter' in any terminology, is rather vague at best. In FT, it reffers to small spacecraft (with crews of less than 5, heavy armarment, and very little if any cargo capacity)

You mean that which we've been talking about near the whole time? Do you think we're arguing about WWI-era bi-planes as they try to align themselves of the Stardestroyer to drop their payload?

Yep, no refutations whatsoever.
Try reading more closely.
And this time, notice the refutations rather than ignore them.

A refutation is generally a statement that blatantly contradicts a previously made argument. What a refutation is not, would be a statement that ignores a previous argument as if it had not been made. Example:

"For reasons previously described FT fighters are obsolete."

"I like fighters because they're cool."

That's not a refutation.

Not surprisingly, such a weapon was developed in the 1940's...
When the infrastructure to make or maintain RPGs was destroyed.

Wow, way to completely fail at comprehending the entire point behind the analogy. As if I was arguing that the system was infeasible (if you're polish it's not) and not the fact that relativistic arguments here lead to fallacy. Real nice there.

This is NOT a High school debate club meet.

There were no rules of who gets to speak when and about what and no time specificly allocted for cross examination.

You don't need high school debate rules to use logic in any actual debate. Otherwise you're all wrong because I think the sky is purple. You get my point.

This is a discussion of what YOU (plural tense) think about the viability of small fighter planes zipping around the FT universe like flies on a hot summer day.

Yes, and arguments have been laid out, and facts given. No response other than "I LIKE MA FIGHTA!" have been seen since then.


This last bit was spurred by your insistance to reply to a response not directed towards you, you then outright called him a noob for giving his opinion on a matter and compare it to crashing a closed RP.

Waltzing in and making statements in a discussion/debate thread in a manner similar to the way a noob crashes and established RP is what makes the analogy possible.

Most of your most recent reply is complaining that one person doesn't share you point of view, now you have two.

Could it instead be my pointing out that not refuting any arguments and not actually reading thread is bad instead? Why yes, yes it very well could be, and likely (and by that, I mean certainly) is.

Really, both you and Godular are acting childish.
You've had your say and he's had his.

If blindly made statements found truth then 4chan would be the paragon of all discovery.

Atomic Rocket: Space War: Weapons: Space Fighters (http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3x.html#fighters)
The Tough Guide to the Known Galaxy: Space Fighters (http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/lyonesse/spaceguideS-Z.htm#space_fighters)

To be blunt, it is better to simply pull the pilot and either make the fighter automated or remote controlled. There is still a case for them as they are more maneuverable and present less of a target than a big ship yet can still carry enough nukes to blow the larger ship away or act as a weapon itself.

Ummm.... fights between space ships would be highly unlikely, as space is really big. When you see the solar system say, as a diagram in a book, it's a lie. You would need like 1000 pages to represent the distance between the planets, and thats assuming you made them maybe 1cm wide. Space combat is just not likely, and if it ever happens it will be mostly pirating, because freighters will take the shortest path between two planets. Sci fi isn't about accurate prediction folks, its about cool stuff in space. BUT. lets say you wanted an area blockaded, the most common vessels would probably be trillions of drones and a couple huge ships. Oh, and an orbital gauss or laser cannon could target and enemy anywhere, so long as it had a clear field of fire.

Atomic Rocket: Space War Introduction: Ain'ta Gonna Study War No More (http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3t.html#warnomore)

Oh there will still be war in space. It'll just be one-shot-one kill conflicts with ships being so far apart the opposing crews can't see their enemy with the naked eye. It will be performed with nukes for offensive weapons and all sorts of others for point defense (kinetic kill, laser, particle beam, etc.). There will be no sheilds except for wimple sheild and heavy armor. Anything with enough relative velocity becomes a deadly weapon. If you're on an unarmed mid-bulk transport "standing still", and if a pirate-raider is tearing past you at seven kilometers per second, and if you leisurely toss an empty beer can into the path of the enemy, the relative velocity will be 7 km/s and the beer can will do severe damage to the enemy ship (if the beer can masses 0.1 kilogram, it will do 2,450,000 Joules of damage). So even though the beer can has practically zero velocity from your standpoint, from the standpoint of the soon-to-be-noseless ship the can has the velocity of a bat out of you-know-where.

As long as there is still something to fight about, be it property, liberty, or just about anything else you can imagine, there will be war.

Yaaaayyy! Two HTs, one on each side of the argument. You don't mind if I call you HT, do you HT? You can call me HT as well.


The "pull tech figures out of whatever book they came from" is not going to sway a lot of RPers (I happen to be one of those). A lot of us would rather simply write a good storyline that crap on with numbers, equations, and physics theorms generally relegated to the university lab.

Congratulations. You've managed to derail the thread completely. This isn't a thread about story versus numbers. It never was. This is a thead about numbers. If you don't like these threads, go on RPing the way you were before. No-one's going to stop you.

Not only does that totally destroy the flow of writing (how many two-page long number explanations or logic reasoning do you see in good works of fiction? Very very few)

Admittedly, yes. But the Reality Dysfunction, and the other in that series are superb works of fiction, and they observe physics closely. You can tell the author did do working-out for that, and it was for the betterment of the book.

but it also serves the point of boring the crap outta those of us trying to do something called fun (if fun to you is doing the above explained actions, then I feel really sorry for you.)

Awwww... does the little snooty RPer-boy feel superior to those of us who like science? So, did you feel sorry for Einstein? Sorry for Watt? Sorry for Newton? They like science and equations - and when you get right down to it, it's the scientists that drive the drumbeat of human progress.

Does it really even matter whether they're obsolete or not?

Probably not. But we're not arguing does it really even matter. We're arguing are they obsolete. For the love of God, let those of us who enjoy debating alone. I don't pop in and laugh at you when you're doing your hobbies, if your only reason to be here is to call the entire thing stupid, why are you even here? Don't you realise one of the thing's that's sadder than debating these sorts of things is wasting your time coming in here and telling us we're wasting our time.

That being said, to each his own: if you don't like fighters, don't use them. But don't try to force the rest of us who like detailing the exploits of all points of a fleet to come into compliance with your views.

Which is why we made our own argument thread. Where we could, y'know, argue these things without being annoying to people such as yourself, and discussing it in other threads. It's almost as if we expected the same courtesy in return...

on a related but tangental note... if you look at it with pure science in mind [as the anti-fighter group seem to do] not only are fighters obsolete In Fleet Combat [they have many, many other uses that they would still work in perfectly well]

but arguably, so are capital ships. this page outlines some of the problems:
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Science/Size.html

then you get into cost, the horrible unlikeliness of fleet battles occurring in the first place, etc etc etc.

arguably, the only ships worth even Touching, from any point of view, are the mid-weights capable of escort, piracy, raiding, anti-pirate etc AND the highly unlikely possibility of fleet combat.

battle stations are, of course, another story.

regardless... we sort of established quite a while back that the answer to this question "are Fighters obsolete in FT" is "no" while the answer to "are Fighters obsolete in FT fleet combat" is "yes".

in addition the question "is fleet combat relevant in FT" is, shock, horror , rather solidly a "no" in it's own right.

(edit: i should note that attack force vs planetary defense [battle]stations doesn't really equate to 'fleet' combat)

if you care about science and realism, that is.

Or Wing Commander, or Freelancer... you know, where one fighter has the capacity to blow the shit out of a capship with relatively little effort. Just because something might operate differently does not inherently change its effective designation. A fighter is what the RPer makes of it. A fighter is what the person putting them out makes of it. Just because it operates differently than what YOU think it should does not mean it instantly becomes a corvette or a light frigate or something else.Riiiight. And because videogames sell better when featuring WW2esque combat in SPAAAAAAAAAAACE, all these points become moot. Alright. Using this logic, I can have a midget land via a civilian flight on your primary planet, after which a microgram of ultra-explosive kept in his liver explodes with a sixtillion times the energy a similar amount of antimatter would yield, and it'd be perfectly good RP. After all, the SMALL and INDIVIDUAL (The midget) should ALWAYS beat the HUGE and MASSIVE (Your planet). Just like fighters are supposed to beat capships by looking angrily at them.

You'll excuse me for disagreeing with the idea.

For the one use you have of that missile, you should say. Its mission scope is rather limited, and if it fails it is generally impossible to get it back and refuel it for another go. And if that missile is the same size as the fighter, it can get blown the hell up in the exact same manner. In the case of missiles, the tactics are almost universally the same: the missile has to get close, so point-defense can snip that tip right quick, while Fighters might have weaponry that allows them to stay a relatively safe distance away.So your fighters mount capship-grade beamweapons outranging PD via more limited beamspread?

Personally, I find the idea unlikely.

And 's far as missile ordnance goes, the point's been answered before. Multiple times, no less. If you haven't read it before, I kinda doubt you'd read it if I point it out again, so I'll spare myself the efford.

Of course, all the costs of building that missile that you may well save in comparison from a fightercraft assumes that you fully expect a fightercraft to be incapable of returning as soon as it departs the launch bay. A fightercraft has reusability on its side, a missile does not. Whatever you save in making that missile goes right out the window with having to make a new one.Funny, how I mentioned earlier than RL missiles cost only about 1/50 of a modern fighter... Hell, even freaking ICBMs don't cost more than a tenth of a 4.5's generation fighter. At twice the mass, ten times the range, ten times the speed & twenty times the max. altitude.

You meant 'Into the next twenty or so missiles', yes?

An enemy sends out bombers, you counter with fighters. Then, you send fighters to counter their fighters.*Faints as someone actually has the right idea* Or in the case of space, missiles. Or unguided bombs launched by railguns/ tossed outta the cargo bay/ displaced into open space.

But yes.

Which brings me to my next question. I asked earlier, would it be better to havd just more advanced point defense systems, drone like A.I. fighters, or just more missiles, instead of fighters?Depends on what your opponent has, I'd say. Personally, I like extended PD coverage, though I'm uncertain whether it's actually cost effective.

Charged shots against fighters being damn near useless of course. I suppose one COULD target a fighter with the Death Star superlaser... not a very efficient use of resources tho.You might want to read your own post again? You claimed that the fighter's shot could be as effective as the capship's one. That's all I refuted.

Mhm. I think I'll treat you evading the point as conceding it.

Concession accepted.

(On a side note, the capship doesn't have to use charged shots against the fighter, now does it? Not sure what you're arguing about, but it makes decidedly little sense...)

I dunno, I sorta went with a megaman principle on that. Generally in the form of "While charging, you can't shoot normal shit." Greater firepower, reduced rate of fire and whatnot.Congrats - failed to address my point. Again.

Want a certificate?

Relativistic distances and greater mobility than the larger vessels are something to consider as well. Scale is an oft-overlooked part of FT combat. If squadrons of fightercraft and a single capship are sitting a couple light-seconds or so apart from each other, the fightercraft would be at a significant advantage simply because they can more easily move out of the way of the capship's fire even if such munitions can travel at the speed of light. Even more so if FTL sensors are invoked. Call me crazy but I suspect that the capship would not be capable of getting out of the way as easily as the fighters could. The fighters might not be scoring precision hits, but I'd bet they'd be hitting more Capship than the Capship hits fighters.Let me be the first to introduce you to widebeam fire, cluster munitions, area effect weaponry, homing munitions, relativistic clouds of sand...

Also, beamspread is - among other things - a function of beam diameter. If your fighters are sitting a couple lightseconds away, their fire's not going to have a noticeable effect not only because they're likely going to have to deal with capship-grade shields ('Wheee, tickles!'), but because their beams will be down to an enery density measured in singledigit joules/ cm^2.

The capship on the other hand might as well manage, oh, probably about a million times that, when the beam's covering a kilometre or so of space. Probably intentionally so, to cover more space.

Somehow, I don't see the fighters having an advantage, there.

They can operate in any niche their originator wishes.Certainly. Whether they're successful on the other hand, is another question. If their originator wishes to use them as submarines, he can do that. This doesn't mean it's a good idea, nor that it'll work.

Again, just because they're fightercraft does not necessarily mean they're exactly the same as whatever you consider fightercraft.Absolutely. And thus, it makes perfect sense for us to redesignate Main Battle Tanks as 'Fighters'.

Oh, wait...

And sure, for the one hit you'll get out of a missile I would agree that it is more 'effective' than a fighter at damaging a capship. Of course, again we fall into the notion that a fighter can put out sustained fire, doing more damage over time than a missile can in its one lone explosive use.Except that the fighter's fire's going to be radiated off faster than the fighter can fire...

How many MBTs have you seen that've been destroyed by repeatedly firing a Beretta .22 Neo at it?

None?

Well, there you have the odds of your fighter actually achiving a kill.

Is what I was responding to, and particularly towards the notion that a 'perfect defense' against any one thing is infeasible in FT. I was not arguing against your position that one cannot be perfectly defended against everything, I was arguing that truth be told why in the bloody hell should one go to the trouble of perfectly defending himself against ONE thing?Amazing, how you must've read that post repeatedly, and still don't get it. I didn't argue that one should concentrate one's defensive measures against one particular means of attack. I was saying that as technology progresses, certain means of attack & defence become pointless as they cease to work. And this doesn't happen because one concentrates on defending against them, it happens because one can get rid of these threats without doing so. Hence, being able to deal with fighters as one can deal with missiles, except easier so, as the fighter's more vulnerable than an equivalent mass missile.

But maybe, if you disagree, you still keep long spears on your ships to defend against cavalry charges...?

No they mustn't. YOUR fightercraft would fall under such restrictions because they're YOUR restrictions. People build things and strategize differently. What some might see as a fighter, might be seen by others as a corvette or a gunboat. It might be more sluggish than other 'fighters' but more durable at the same time and capable of putting out a heftier punch.Been addressed above. If you call a 100 metre/ 10000 tonne ship a 'Fighter', you're intentionally screwing with perception for the sole purpose of prolonging the painful arguing about semantics, rather than contributing something worthwhile. If your argument is 'But fighters really aren't fighters!', start a thread about what constitutes a fighter, and stop wasting everyone else's time in here. Personally, I'm willing to bet good money that Wanderjar didn't have your definition (If that - probably just 'Fucking around') of fighter in mind.

Oh, and you're also ignoring what you yourself said about cost effectiveness... Apart from pointlessly raving on with what IMHO constitutes trolling. But hey.

Getting worked up over pixels, are we? Tsk. EquivTech does not mean that everybody operates under the exact same principles. Sure the enemy might have the same 'level' of technology than you, but he also might organize differently. He might have a different cultural outlook or some random other thing. Who knows, maybe their definition of a 'Fighter' might be some freaky little pod with a ramped up engine built entirely for the purpose of dragging several fighter-sized missiles within striking distance, letting loose, then booking it back to the mothership in order to reload for another pass. That could be their definition of a fighter, a fighter-bomber, missile platform, or any number of other things.Not addressing my point, and answered in previous posts. Not gonna bother.

arguably, the only ships worth even Touching, from any point of view, are the mid-weights capable of escort, piracy, raiding, anti-pirate etc AND the highly unlikely possibility of fleet combat.Depends on one's technology base. If you've centralised manufacturing, then yes - you stop as soon as you have what you need in terms of firepower & transportation. Given the (Typically) overpowering nature of space weaponry, or more to the point, the shoot-it-bit-by-bit-if-it's-too-thick nature of beam weapons (Particle beams in particular), size-is-safety tends not to work particularly well.

'course, the next level is decentralised manufacturing, where ships produce their own munitions (Enough comets about for that), do their own repairs & all. They'll need the means necessary for manufacturing, which involves a size-increase (Which is a bad thing, but personally, I wub carrying my logistics with me, rather than having to spend extra time on protecting and organising - not to mention keeping - tenders).

It gets worse than that, of course (To the point of warships being unnecessary), but I'll spare everyone the image of von Neumann'd warfare.

in addition the question "is fleet combat relevant in FT" is, shock, horror , rather solidly a "no" in it's own right.

(edit: i should note that attack force vs planetary defense [battle]stations doesn't really equate to 'fleet' combat)I'd disagree. Battlestations are so terrifyingly immobile, and tend to fall victim to long range bombardement...

Funny, how I mentioned earlier than RL missiles cost only about 1/50 of a modern fighter... Hell, even freaking ICBMs don't cost more than a tenth of a 4.5's generation fighter. At twice the mass, ten times the range, ten times the speed & twenty times the max. altitude.
Actually heavy missiles cost quite a lot. ICBM cost more than fighters, except for F-22, of course; I'm not sure which source says otherwise. Their cost is tens of millions.
Lighter missiles can cost a lot too. Well, heavy AShM, Shipwreck aka Granit, used to be called "single-use fighters" by their critics, because such missile costs as much as MiG-21 fighter.
On the other hand, they are effectively unmanned supersonic fighters, which, properly estimating the survival rate in an attack against a carrier battle group, traded reusability for smaller size.

So there's no real cost difference, approx.equal cost for equal size.

In FT that would apply as well. So, on one hand, missiles can do the same as fighters, on the other, they aren't much different. I haven't played in FT for quite a while and wasn't a warmonger anyway, but I recall some fighters were actually done properly, not like modern ones put in space.
In MT-PMT, the usability of strike fighters is largely due to their wings: large wings allow them to have great range. Plus, of course, the ability to actually fight. Personally I think large-scale use of fighters in FT is a large-scale waste of pilots. On the other hand, they can be unmanned, and in this case the question "Is it a kamikaze fighter or a missile with self-defense?" is a question of designation rather than design.

...yeah. Kay, my apologies, AN and Bryn Shander. I've apparently been out of the loop too long, and forgotten what asinine, or living in pixie-land actually means. Which, in this case, is interrupting a thread on fighter useability with an anti-war spiel.

Of course, this dude jumps into random threads and rants about how either resources are running out, that America and capitalism are evil, or that warfare is obsolete.

In any case. Beddy times. Good times. Have fun with writing up your rebuttle.

evil schmeval. ever hear of suspension of disbelief? or is this a meaningless concept to you or this discussion?

perhapse i missunderstood the question. if suspension of disbelief is of no pertenence to it, kindly explain what the effing ell is?

----

now then the usefulness of pt boat concept tecnology has a lot to do with who'se hands it's in. relativly useless to main force millitary overkill perhapse, but in the hands of pirates raiding supply lines, who stay spread out to avoid vulnerability to mass weapons and thus having to be picked off one at a time, like a swarm of mosquitoes. even water buffaloes must make extrodinary manuvers to escape from them.

now consider the effects of piracy on logistics.

even taking your manufacturing base with you, with say a world ship. ok you've still got to defend that. AND maintain supply lines between it and your actual battle theatre. and don't forget ITS mass and inertia!

=^^=
.../\...

Actually heavy missiles cost quite a lot. ICBM cost more than fighters, except for F-22, of course; I'm not sure which source says otherwise. Their cost is tens of millions.Nuclearweaponsarchive & FAS both disagree (Minuteman III). I think I'll take my chances and go with 'em.

Yes, I realise there's costs other than procurment costs. Fighters have them too.

?
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/icbm/lgm-118.htm - 70 mln
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/slbm/d-5.htm - 30 mln

Minuteman is cheaper. However, not way. Don't forget to account for inflation - the data are old, like FY78, and it grows quite a bit due to 30 years of inflation. It also is way smaller, still not fitting "a tenth of a 4.5's generation fighter. At twice the mass, [...]" neither by mass not by cost.

Mhm, alright. Point conceded - same costs at four times the mass, ten times the range, twenty times the altitude, ten times max. speed.

Some ICBMs do cost more, a Minuteman III is in fact cheaper. However, comparing the cost of an ICBM to a fighter is not really the way to look at it, you should be comparing an anti-ship missile (harpoon, around half a million) to a fighter. That is, if you want a proper analogy.

Anyways, I'll pitch in something again. I think capital ships, as earlier mentioned, are also, if not useless, far from preferable in space combat. This is due to their size and cost, and the effect of losing even one will do when compared to smaller vessels. I think in a hard FT sense, combat would be long range missile engagements between corvette and frigate sized vessels, adding in guns (mass drivers, rail guns, whatever type of direct fire weaponry their packing) once they close the range.

Now, carriers and fighters will still have a use in close combat around a moon, planet, asteroid belt, where the range drops off significantly and becomes worthwhile using larger numbers of strike craft as opposed to the larger frigates/corvettes. Carriers will also have a use for landing marines to board stations, colonies, and establish a sort of beachhead on a planet until larger, proper troopships can start offloading large numbers of ground forces.

Now, my ideas are related to hard FT, imagining combat taking place between Earth, moon, Mars, etc. When you start moving into more open-ended, not so realistic tech, like say Star Trek or Star Wars with warp drives, hyperspace, energy shields, etc etc. Well, you can come up with sorts of tech to make fighters useful, I suppose. And, in regards to FT RPing, fighters are fun, and since NS is supposed to be about having fun (at least to me) then like I mentioned a while back, I'm more than happy to use them and have others use them against me.

BTW, an interesting piece from http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Weapons/Mmiii.html:
To extend the life of the Minuteman III missile force to 2020, 200 retired Minuteman II missiles are being modified to Minuteman III configuration to provide additional missiles for spares and testing (a number of test missiles are fired each year to ensure reliability). The aging solid fuel first and second stages will also be "repoured" using state-of-the-art propellant and bonding technology, the third stages will be remanufactured. These Minuteman force upgrades and life extension will cost more than $5 billion.
200 missiles are being partially remade, and that costs $5 billion - 25 millions per missile.


So, generally, the cost difference is much lower than it may seem. Now, ICBM are also, for most part, dumb missiles: most of the missile is a tube with solid fuel. That's what gives them the mass.

Smart missiles with more complex engines, like AtA (air to air) ones, cost more per unit of mass than fighters.

Therefore, assuming FT missiles would be large but smart and complex ones, they would likely cost as much as fighters per unit of mass.

In space combat, you wouldn't really need a warhead. A solid piece of metal being propelled at high velocities in space should be more than sufficient for punching through an enemy vessel. I don't think FT missiles would be the size of a fighter, I think they'd be the size of say a modern Harpoon, perhaps larger, but you get the picture. This would allow you to carry more as opposed to a fighter.

Maybe Vault 10's cost of an ICBM is including it's nuclear payload???You also include a fighter's ordnance in its procurement costs...?

Anyways, I'll pitch in something again. I think capital ships, as earlier mentioned, are also, if not useless, far from preferable in space combat. This is due to their size and cost, and the effect of losing even one will do when compared to smaller vessels.They also offer vastly superior range (This does, admittedly, hit a moot point once you try to shoot mobile targets over distances in excess of about ten lightseconds - though a greater max. range offers improved missile defences when one increases beamspread, and you get a greater max. range, well... Accidentally) and - assuming that you've crews and/ or insufficient nano/ forcefieldwank to include full-on repair capabilities on something the size of a cutter - duration, nevermind that some people might've problems fitting their FTL drives into something small.

Not to mention that not every mission profile can be filled out by endless missile swarms.

Yes, I'm fully aware that in the case of total war, it's easiest for me to simply clanker assorted oort clouds and spam the hell outta everyone. I'm twinky enough for that (Sad as it is to admit as much). Hell, I would do it (But of course, I've yet to fight a total war). Well, if it wouldn't involve a) boredom and b) have difficulties being accepted. But the typical mission profile looks a tad different from total war - I do not usually desire the total annihilation of an opponent. I require a sapient mind and a symbol for post-war proceedings, I desire to avoid civilian casualties, and - lets be honest here - the shipminds' egos require space strapons.

Yup. They get raped by an equal mass of missiles. There's almost nothing that could safe them in such a case (For an example, well, Khrrck used just that against me...). And of course, even if the ship can - due to a lack of mission parameters than 'Survive' escape, the missiles would kill off planetary settlements. But missiles tend to be a bit one sided... The big 'uns provide a bit of versatility I desire (And versatility that I can, quite frankly, afford, because the NSverse features things noticeably different from perfect warmachines. And as I do lack the (IC, no less) interest of being one myself...).

I think I should just point out that all my arguments and beliefs are based on 'hard' FT considerations, aka, something we could be doing in say sixty or seventy years. For example, I'm thinking of making up a new FT nation, whose tech will be say around sixty or seventy years in the future. I'm thinking of torus space settlements, asteroid mining, and ships utilizing solar sails and firing off missile barrages at each other from long range. As for the risk of hitting planetary surface, that's why I said fighters are still useful in that role. No attacker (unless their like a future version of Satlin, Hitler, etc) would lob missiles at enemy ships parked in front of a planet due to the fact that some of those missiles would hit the surface. That's why fighters are useful, as attackers will have come to within close range where there's no time dilation and where guns can be used effectively.

Therefore, assuming FT missiles would be large but smart and complex ones, they would likely cost as much as fighters per unit of mass.No. The difference wouldn't be an order of magnitude, but not requiring a trained pilot, life support, high-grade materials capable of surviving multiple missions (My missiles at least tend to make a point in not being able to survive much more than a single flight (In terms of damage to the propulsion section due to positively absurd energy densities) kinda does have an impact.

Of course, there's the question of alternative economies - replace 'Money' with 'Mass' (Energy being expressed with the same) and 'Time'. But of course, this would just turn the pilot into an absurdly costly - not only in resources invested, but also in the effect on morale once one starts taking casualties - component.

Doesn't hold true as much with drone fighters, mind.

Well ok actually missiles are expensive. Now I use two kinds, cheap cruddy missiles that are essentially two stage C fracs that can move with massive payloads, and drones that deploy a payload and are called "missiles". Because a highly advanced anti ship missile capable of following an evading war ship and evading PD fire to slam in to a target over a course of millions of kilometers is so expensive its not worth spending so much on it. Remember a guided missile has to be able to defeat countermeasures if it is fire and forget. So technically this big missile would have a pitiful payload compared to my Torpedoes, which are basically a simple guidance computer, an engine with a little reaction mass to change direction a tad, and a massive warhead.

Now my fighters use a similiar missile, sure it is way smaller then the nigh fighter length torpedo or Bio-com missile, but its warhead is actually larger in comparison, as its deployed even closer and just has minor verniers to coast it along after launch. [All my missiles are launched via gravitic assist, ie c frac first stage]. Now for actual stats when i used to use them, the Torpedo carried two hundred kilograms of antimatter, the fighter torp, small one carried just two kilograms. Of course when you carry one hundred of these things...that becomes the equivalent impact of fourty kilo's per launch, [raetes can launch twenty missile salvos] in five seconds it can deploy every single missile. This of course made this fighter a firecracker, and my other AS missiles are nowhere near as effective.

However this is an example of what you could actually do with a missile, as well as differences. My standard Bio-com's missile only carries at most a fifty kg payload when it carries an antimatter submunition. It needs to get to the enemy, survive and deploy. It cheats by becoming a very basic daughter craft...its actually a drone bomber.

Now sure you could easily scoff off the ability of a tiny plane to do that much damage to a ship, but surely one hundred and fifty megatons has got to at least cause a bit of bruising, and if five of those slam home its nearly a gigaton of force. From what I know a gigaton could cause heinous damage to a planet let alone a ship. Now I dont use these numbers in RP, I find it distasteful to muddle them with numbers now, I used to do it and it really took from the writing for me. So now its just writing, but I will tell you that the AM torpedo that is built to kill ships at close range is definetly FAR more powerful then anything that the long range missiles that Der angst uses, pound for pound, unless DA is using ones that are along the same lines.

Yes fighters dont deploy at as long ranges, they also dont need to. Instead they can deploy these at ranges where the ships wont really be able to evade. As for PD ripping them apart. Well thats what your smaller anti cap ship guided missiles are for. Suppressing PD by causing the first wave, which isnt as fragile thanks to the highly volatile explosives, to come under fire. Then the second wave moves in. Its called tactics. All the weapons and doodads in the world wont save you if your captains are all brain dead.

Even modern fighters can carry substantially sized tactical nuclear warheads. The point is really, that a fighter can carry something that can hurt a ship. Now we are not talking one hit instakill zomg. But definetly something that can match an engagement weapon for one hit, meaning it can cause damage if it hits. Remember a fighter can simply deploy a 200kg dart while coming in on a high speed pass like a dive bomber. Now a fighter could likely carry several of these. This is just one example of many on how a fighter can harm a cap ship. It may not be as bad as a full broadside from a battle ship...but then again the numbers of fighters might make up for it. Remember also there are fighters, interceptors, and strike craft.

As for fighters being both obsolete in fleet battles, and fleet battles being obsolete..no. As fleet battles would occur only around planets, the ranges reduce meaning every gun capable of deploying becomes useful. You have to take that world, he has to defend it. There is no other way around it. Fighting will get close and personal and then fighters will shine, especially when there is so much jamming and interference you cant see the 6-12 meter long things.

If you try to argue the validity and cost effectiveness of the dart being deployed on a high speed run [no launcher needed], then well to be honest I dont see a point in arguing with people who just want to invalidate fighters because they dont personally like them. We will never, ever be done with fighter craft. They are simply too useful.

You have to cut the line somewhere....

If you PAY TOO much attention, then its boring, especially without fleet action...

Not to mention it isn't completly impossible. Carbon Nanotubes are 60x stronger than industrial strength steel. So even more advanced nanotubes could be even stronger. As for labor, you can simply use robots. If you have a large empire, resources and money should be no problem. Even If I am a Hard FT person, as long as I have FTL travel and communication, thousands of settled worlds are not unreasonable.

Well ok actually missiles are expensive. Now I use two kinds, cheap cruddy missiles that are essentially two stage C fracs that can move with massive payloads, and drones that deploy a payload and are called "missiles". Because a highly advanced anti ship missile capable of following an evading war ship and evading PD fire to slam in to a target over a course of millions of kilometers is so expensive its not worth spending so much on it. Remember a guided missile has to be able to defeat countermeasures if it is fire and forget. So technically this big missile would have a pitiful payload compared to my Torpedoes, which are basically a simple guidance computer, an engine with a little reaction mass to change direction a tad, and a massive warhead.

So a missile has to... hit the target? Wow. Never thought of that! So because that is so difficult, we have to use fighters, which are (given equivalent tech) worse at surviving the situation you yourself just setup? Lovely. You just proved fighters are obsolete in FT, good job.

Now sure you could easily scoff off the ability of a tiny plane to do that much damage to a ship, but surely one hundred and fifty megatons has got to at least cause a bit of bruising, and if five of those slam home its nearly a gigaton of force. From what I know a gigaton could cause heinous damage to a planet let alone a ship. Now I dont use these numbers in RP, I find it distasteful to muddle them with numbers now, I used to do it and it really took from the writing for me. So now its just writing, but I will tell you that the AM torpedo that is built to kill ships at close range is definetly FAR more powerful then anything that the long range missiles that Der angst uses, pound for pound, unless DA is using ones that are along the same lines.

It's amusing that your every paragraph deals with fappity descriptions of technology, that prove missiles > fighters yet in the end you argue that fighters are so fucking awesome in the roles people traditionally use them in (trying to kill super-battleships). It's a funny contradiction.

Yes fighters dont deploy at as long ranges, they also dont need to. Instead they can deploy these at ranges where the ships wont really be able to evade. As for PD ripping them apart. Well thats what your smaller anti cap ship guided missiles are for. Suppressing PD by causing the first wave, which isnt as fragile thanks to the highly volatile explosives, to come under fire. Then the second wave moves in. Its called tactics. All the weapons and doodads in the world wont save you if your captains are all brain dead.

This isn't a tactic, this is just stupid. Wanna know why? Because wasting your good anti-capship missiles in the first wave, only to be replaced by the shit (fighters) squad only means you do less damage than if the first wave had been shitty fighters, and the second all the anti-capship munitions.

Even modern fighters can carry substantially sized tactical nuclear warheads. The point is really, that a fighter can carry something that can hurt a ship. Now we are not talking one hit instakill zomg. But definetly something that can match an engagement weapon for one hit, meaning it can cause damage if it hits. Remember a fighter can simply deploy a 200kg dart while coming in on a high speed pass like a dive bomber. Now a fighter could likely carry several of these. This is just one example of many on how a fighter can harm a cap ship. It may not be as bad as a full broadside from a battle ship...but then again the numbers of fighters might make up for it. Remember also there are fighters, interceptors, and strike craft.

A fighter can't carry an ICBM, or most of the heavy-hitting munitions of today that are designed to take out city blocks. We use fighters because we don't have the guidance systems, or efficient fuel resources that would allow anti-tank missiles to be deployed from 150km away instead of relying on fighters (and the expense therein) to deliver them to the target area.

Your list of ways a fighter can hurt a capship are nice, and no one generally disagrees that fighters can carry anti-capship weapons, but we disagree that the fighter is therefore more useful than a bus-sized missile slamming into the capship at .9c independent of a damn fighter. It's a situation that has yet to be refuted.

As for fighters being both obsolete in fleet battles, and fleet battles being obsolete..no. As fleet battles would occur only around planets, the ranges reduce meaning every gun capable of deploying becomes useful. You have to take that world, he has to defend it. There is no other way around it. Fighting will get close and personal and then fighters will shine, especially when there is so much jamming and interference you cant see the 6-12 meter long things.

When did anyone argue fleet battles were out the window in the same way fighters are? If it gets up-close and personal, that means PD has an easier time killing your fighters, and then you lose more than if you had deployed a thousand missiles instead. You just don't seem able to grasp the concept that since missiles > fighters, that fighters < practical in FT. What is so hard about that?

If you try to argue the validity and cost effectiveness of the dart being deployed on a high speed run [no launcher needed], then well to be honest I dont see a point in arguing with people who just want to invalidate fighters because they dont personally like them. We will never, ever be done with fighter craft. They are simply too useful.

Read posts. Make refutations. Be logical. Don't poison the well by assuming anyone who doesn't agree with the fighter concept in FT, don't also personally like them as if we have a vendetta against them. All you've done is tread already treaded ground and not added anything to the conversation; good going.

to be fair, most of the people who argue against fighters being useful in this thread DO come across as... well.. arseholes.

and they DO seem to frame their arguments in a "not only does it not work, but you're an [exceive explicitives] idiot to want to use them in any situation reguardless of any other mitigating factors, and if you happen to have anything that could possibly contradict any of my points even if it agrees with my over all position you're a [excesive explicatives]" kind of way.

[note: minor exaguration compaired to specifics to give over all impression]

isn't to say that's what you think, isn't to say you're wrong, or anything like that... but it's very easy to see why people respond to it as such, and it's quite funny to see more of the same in a post pointing out they shouldn't argue in part based upon that.


i should also point out that most of your arguments against fighters work just as well against missiles, and most of the arguments for missiles work just as well for fighters.

the thing most people seem to ignore is that how things are employed matters at least as much as what they Are.

i know that people hate analogies other than their own in this thread, or so it seems, but much of the thinking behind "fighters suck" [as well as a lot of the thinking behind "fighters are great"] actually comes from the same angle as the "the Yamoto doesn't need an escort to go join up with the fleet, it's so powerful nothing would dare attack it!" line of thought.. which resulted in, i believe, a torpedo bomber and/or sub sinking what was probably one of the best battleships ever built. that example gets used to counter "battleships are actually pretty good" so often it's not funny. the reality is that all it says is that "idiocy and incompetence lose important assets/battles/wars"

in summery: every argument i've seen from every side [including my own] in this debate has horrendous flaws in one place or another.

could you at LEAST try to be, i don't know, POLITE about it?

half the time when you lot jump on someone for being condescending, they're simply being clear and making their point well... and the 'point by point but ignore the bits i don't have an answer to while screeching like a chimpanzee' responses don't do anyone, no matter which side, any favors.

nor does it help your case in any way shape or from. try to keep at least the latter half of this post in mind, k? makes life easier for all concerned.

and yes, i am well aware that some of you like to debate, even heatedly. debate is good. chimpanzee screeching is bad. there's a rather distinct difference.

evil schmeval. ever hear of suspension of disbelief?

..so I'm supposed to suspend my disbelief in capitalism? I'm sure that's not a completely idiotic thing to say.

perhapse i missunderstood the question. if suspension of disbelief is of no pertenence to it, kindly explain what the effing ell is?

Perhaps you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. It certainly seems that way.

----

in the hands of pirates raiding supply lines, who stay spread out to avoid vulnerability to mass weapons and thus having to be picked off one at a time, like a swarm of mosquitoes. even water buffaloes must make extrodinary manuvers to escape from them

It's good to see you're willing to make a decent argument without relying on another tired old analogy. Oh, wait. You're not. My bad. Supply lines are somewhat relevent, however, many planets will have sufficient infrastructure to produce most of what they need - including spaceships.

now consider the effects of piracy on logistics.

Virtually nil. Have you ever tried to pirate something in space? Destroy, perhaps. But boarding a vessel is absolutely ludicrous. And when you consider that most cargo will be hauled in fleets, should they be coming into risk - and most people can afford to protect their supply lines, should they find the need.

even taking your manufacturing base with you, with say a world ship. ok you've still got to defend that. AND maintain supply lines between it and your actual battle theatre. and don't forget ITS mass and inertia!

Mass and inertia. Of course. After all this time looking at how a starship might move, how could I forget about inertia? In fact, I think everyone else here forgot about it too. I thank you, noble enlightened one, for giving us information we have only been using for the last.. oh, 8 or 9 pages constantly.

=^^=
.../\...

There's a 'signature' function in your User CP for a reason. Adding that random little symbol doesn't make you look clever - it makes you look like you're not smart enough to figure how to work the signature function.

Well ok actually missiles are expensive. Now I use two kinds, cheap cruddy missiles that are essentially two stage C fracs that can move with massive payloads, and drones that deploy a payload and are called "missiles". Because a highly advanced anti ship missile capable of following an evading war ship and evading PD fire to slam in to a target over a course of millions of kilometers is so expensive its not worth spending so much on it. Remember a guided missile has to be able to defeat countermeasures if it is fire and forget. So technically this big missile would have a pitiful payload compared to my Torpedoes, which are basically a simple guidance computer, an engine with a little reaction mass to change direction a tad, and a massive warhead.ECM & ECCM isn't even remotely as space-intensive as you're making it out to be. The latest RL missile generation manages to have about 1/3 of their total mass being, well, warhead, and still packs guidance and assorted countermeasures.

Now, 1/3 of the total mass as warhead doesn't work when the target has similar ratios (Even Star wars gets about 25% engines or so, I believe, and I get up to 40%), and enjoys flying in the same medium - but 10% of the missiles' mass as warhead, 80% engine (Ideally doubling as a shield against interstellar dust) & 10% 'Other' works out perfectly well for lighter ones (Heavier ones might sacrifice some speed for armour).

Particularly when the warhead's post-fusion.

However this is an example of what you could actually do with a missile, as well as differences. My standard Bio-com's missile only carries at most a fifty kg payload when it carries an antimatter submunition. It needs to get to the enemy, survive and deploy. It cheats by becoming a very basic daughter craft...its actually a drone bomber.And this still doesn't answer the question 's of why you're using daughter craft, rather than launching the missiles directly. They can coast along with inactive engines just fine. Which would, among other things, make detection harder.

And with such tiny missiles, frankly, I'd blow them up by pointing primary active EM sensor arrays at them and dialing up to full output.

but I will tell you that the AM torpedo that is built to kill ships at close range is definetly FAR more powerful then anything that the long range missiles that Der angst uses, pound for pound, unless DA is using ones that are along the same lines.Pound for pound, yes...

Problem is, your missiles blow up when scratched by a LIDAR-array. A 6- or 60 kton missile tends to shrug off point defence.

I wont even get into antimatter containment and how that really should screw up warhead/ mass ratios.

Yes fighters dont deploy at as long ranges, they also dont need to. Instead they can deploy these at ranges where the ships wont really be able to evade.This is, of course, assuming that the fighters can reach that point in the first place.

And given previous notes on fighters being nothing but a first stage for the missile, suffering from losing all the advantages fighters have when fighting wet ships, this strikes me as mildly unlikely. For starters, it requires me to stay where I am, and move, well, not at all.

Hint: I don't.

Nevermind that at no-escape distance, the fighter wont exactly excel at evading, either.

Annnnnnnnnd I really don't want to be on a Tannelornian ship when a lucky hit penetrates and hits the missile storage. Gotta hurt seeing all the AM turning into photons and assorted subatomic particles.

Well, it'd be a quick death, I suppose.

As for PD ripping them apart. Well thats what your smaller anti cap ship guided missiles are for. Suppressing PD by causing the first wave, which isnt as fragile thanks to the highly volatile explosives, to come under fire. Then the second wave moves in. Its called tactics. All the weapons and doodads in the world wont save you if your captains are all brain dead.Oh, I agree. That's why your fleet would be utterly lost.

Seriously. Sending in missile swarm after missile swarm just gives the defending side the opportunity to kill them one by one. Your 'Tactic' basically ensures your defeat, simply because you split already-inferior numbers even more, giving your enemy more time to intercept the missiles, thus increasing his kill ratio.

Yes, I agree. Braindead captains tend to cause losses. As such, may I suggest reanimating yours?

Even modern fighters can carry substantially sized tactical nuclear warheads. The point is really, that a fighter can carry something that can hurt a ship.Nobody is disagreeing with this. The question is - why bother with the fighter?

It may not be as bad as a full broadside from a battle ship...but then again the numbers of fighters might make up for it.No it doesn't. As has been pointed out earlier, a capship can do all of these things, over arbitrary distances. A capship that doesn't bother with carrying fighters does therefore have more actual ordnance available than one that does. More fighters do thus reduce your overall firepower.

As for fighters being both obsolete in fleet battles, and fleet battles being obsolete..no. As fleet battles would occur only around planets, the ranges reduce meaning every gun capable of deploying becomes useful. You have to take that world, he has to defend it.So you eliminate the one perceived advantage of fighters by having your capships well in range, anyway?

Fighting will get close and personal and then fighters will shine, especially when there is so much jamming and interference you cant see the 6-12 meter long things.The same applies to missiles.

For that matter, that's absurdly small. You're still in WW2?

If you try to argue the validity and cost effectiveness of the dart being deployed on a high speed run [no launcher needed]You launch the fighter, ne? You use dozens of fighters, the space they occupy, the money their maintenance & production costs, the time and efford training a pilot takes to do something that can just as easily be done by tossing rocks outta the cargo bay and breaking off.

And you think that's 'Cost Effective'?

lol.

Fighters would be as obsolete as ground troops are today.

Fighters would be as obsolete as ground troops are today.

Elaborate, well-supported and wordy. You, sir, are truly a debater for our times. Now, if you're not prepared to actually support your arguments, with relevent figures, reasoning - or hell, even an extended analogy, please don't step into these arguments.

This thread's gone from actually debateable to laughable. This is simply hilarious...

Maybe Physics is actually more exciting than I find it to be through studying it in college coarses, but please...this is almost scary. I hope you don't argue physics like this in actual life.

Why not solve the problems in an RP, where it can actually be tested, rather than base resolves on theory after theory?

You can study about swimming, or you can jump right in. Which would you rather do?

Maybe that's whY I'd rather just watch these threads. They get pretty funny after a while...

Why not solve the problems in an RP, where it can actually be tested, rather than base resolves on theory after theory?
You can study about swimming, or you can jump right in. Which would you rather do?
Because the RP will reference this thread... RP don't test things, actually, they rely on past practice and OOC threads, which make the mindset.
And yes, I'd study and train first before jumping into the middle of the ocean.

takes to do something that can just as easily be done by tossing rocks outta the cargo bay and breaking off.
[ahem] How long will it take for people to realize that space doesn't give high velocities, it only makes them possible. But you have to provide that velocity.

Carbon Nanotubes are 60x stronger than industrial strength steel. So even more advanced nanotubes could be even stronger.
The ones 60x stronger are already almost theoretical. They aren't manufactured, except for gloriously assembling a single tiny sample.


Your list of ways a fighter can hurt a capship are nice, and no one generally disagrees that fighters can carry anti-capship weapons, but we disagree that the fighter is therefore more useful than a bus-sized missile slamming into the capship at .9c independent of a damn fighter.
A fighter can do a lot more things, OTOH. Intercepting the missiles is the first thing that comes to mind. A missile knows the ship location precisely and is built specially to resist its PD weapons. A fighter attacks it from vulnerable angle and at close range.

This thread's gone from actually debateable to laughable. This is simply hilarious...

Oh I agree, your own contributions for example, are both hilarious and indicative of already established beliefs pertaining to the character of most people here.

Maybe Physics is actually more exciting than I find it to be through studying it in college coarses, but please...this is almost scary. I hope you don't argue physics like this in actual life.

You have a more correct way to argue it do ya? Well I guess you could, ya know, make a contribution and try using it here instead of bitching at us for debating the actual topic of this thread.

Why not solve the problems in an RP, where it can actually be tested, rather than base resolves on theory after theory?

Sure thing. Instead of using logic, reason, and fortifying our arguments with established facts, why don't we test every concept with a nice bit of roleplay? I hear NASA does it all the time.

You can study about swimming, or you can jump right in. Which would you rather do?

Too bad I don't have the money or training to built a space-fighter in my backyard to test it against the battleship you have hovering about in orbit.

Maybe that's whY I'd rather just watch these threads. They get pretty funny after a while...

Keep posting like this, and we'll all be laughing.

Despite the absence of a horizon to block sensor waves (especially radar and lidar/ladar), sensors are limited by the size of their antennae (and other factors) as well as the willingness of commanders to display the size and disposition of their fleet to the enemy. Small warcraft would serve as the pickets and cavalry, scouting and guarding the flanks, as well as chasing off enemy reconnaissance craft. Once the battle begins in earnest, such smaller ships, depending upon the size and defences of the larger craft, might be less effective, but then again, they have already served their purpose.

Second, fighters would not necessarily be crewed in any case. Indeed, modern air forces are potentially 1-2 generations from switching to uncrewed combat aircraft (although this possibility has been discussed as far back as 1950, wrt replacing manned interceptors by SAMs; needless to say, it didn't work then). Fighters (and their ordnance and supplies) take up space, but firing missiles once the "enemy" hoves into view is counterproductive as well. There has to be a balance.

to be fair, most of the people who argue against fighters being useful in this thread DO come across as... well.. arseholes.

and they DO seem to frame their arguments in a "not only does it not work, but you're an [exceive explicitives] idiot to want to use them in any situation reguardless of any other mitigating factors, and if you happen to have anything that could possibly contradict any of my points even if it agrees with my over all position you're a [excesive explicatives]" kind of way.

.

With you on this one

I for one provided a reasoned arguement for the usefulness of fighters that seems to have gotten lost in the rantings the last three pages. A reader may not agree with it, but it is based on logic and history and the premise that men tend to adapt to conditions on the battlefield or in war and use what is useful.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12423503&postcount=80

A few observations
1. Arguement that space is too big for a fleet engagement to be likely-

historically, so are the oceans, and up until World War II the number of major battles fought out of sight of land could be counted on one hand. Nevertheless, naval combat was common, and fleet engagements occured frequently in practically every major war in the Ancient and Modern period and weren't uncommon even in the Middle Ages. In short, they occured near areas of strategic importance.. like a planet for example in future tech, or desirable moon or what have you.

2. The invincible capital ship argument-

Sure, you can create the invincible capital ship, but most likely it would be too expensive to be risked. Look at the Navies during World War I. They had very large fleets of capital ships that were practically invincible (no battleship was sunk by gunfire, only battlecruisers were) but were so relectucant to face mines, submarines and light forces without overwhelming reason that they spent most of the war in port.

Which meant that the light ships fought most of the war.

3. Planets produce everything they need---

This is like saying nations produce everything they need. It isn't so, unless and this is a big unless, ALL planets are of equal tech level, industrialization, and productive capacity. Which seems more fantasy then science fiction, as even in periods of history prior to industrialization, when tech level and productive capacity was fairly equatable, specialization was valuable enough to create trade.

In a lot of settings, most planets are going to be more like a frontier area or 3rd world nation then an industrialized fully developed economy.

4. You can't board a ship thus piracy is impossible---

That assumes that one ship cannot gain an acceleration and manuever advantage over another sufficient to allow it to close and dock. This too seems unlikely.


5. My physics is better then your physics---

Short of a credential check, seems to be simply combative for the sake of being combative

6. Specific size requirements for fighters --

The Honor Harrington series presents a very reasoned argument for large (in size) ships being used as fighters against capital ships many times their relative and actual size. All fighters need not be the size of an X-Wing, Cylon Raider, or F-14. At least in a Sci Fi setting.

7. Bigger is better --

Not always so. It is much easier to hide a small object in space then a large object not only because of size, but also because stealth materials, ECM, decoys etc all of which be used to allow a smaller ship to sneak up to within firing range of a larger ship. Unless you have an invincible active or passive sensor system (which seems like godmodding to me), there should be a chance for small fighter like ships to sneak up on and ambush a large capital ship in some tactical situations.

8 Missiles are superior to fighters --

Not for flexibility. An ICBM may have more bang for the buck then an F-22, but since we have never used ICBMs in war and fighters are commonly used, that is highly argueable. ICBMs and most other missiles are designed for a single mission. Fighters can be used for a lot of different missions, including flying around and being intimidating.

Unless you have robotic fighters, and more importantly, are willing to trust their reliability and think all of the Science Fiction stories of robotic weapons turning on their masters is silly, having robotic fighters as a norm seems risky. Even setting aside that possibility, you are also assuming that your enemy will not at some point develop the ECM and EW capability to deflect, take over or simply massively confuse them to the point of uselessness. In other words, if you have an invincible missile, why can't I have an invincible computer virus that can take over that missile using its communications with its controller. If its invincible fire and forget, then there is no reason I can't have a beam that can allows me to fry its little computer brain.

but were so relectucant to face mines, submarines and light forces without overwhelming reason that they spent most of the war in port.

I've decried these analogies time and time again. Space combat is not WW2, nor is it WW2. There's no perfect analogy for space combat - they can be used in a limited, limited fashion, but when people try and base their arguments off them, I don't feel inclined to take them seriously.

This is like saying nations produce everything they need.

Look. Chances are that a planet, or the asteroids in nearby belts will have abundant metal resources. Furthermore, it is unlikely that you'll colonize a planet with no ability to produce its own food.

as even in periods of history prior to industrialization, when tech level and productive capacity was fairly equatable, specialization was valuable enough to create trade.

Of course it was. But it doesn't necessarily mean an entire planet is going to be specialized. You'll have specialized trades on the planet, but it doesn't mean everyone on Planet X will be a mechanic. For the most part, a planet should be able to produce a lot of what it needs - if not all, because a planet that's capable of supporting three billion people may not also be able to support the frigates and planetary landing craft to feed them.


That assumes that one ship cannot gain an acceleration and manuever advantage over another sufficient to allow it to close and dock. This too seems unlikely.

Good to see you've again supported your arguments beyond 'this too seems unlikely'. But, let's look at the situation. Assume an open path between Planet A and Planet B, for the sheer sake of conjecture (or, alternatively, assume anything inbetween is littered with active sensors).

Now, Ship X is going from A to B. Ship Y wants to pirate it. Assume we have, say, one decent-sized ship (Z) going along with the freighter fleet. Since it's impossible to hide at engagement ranges, Ship Z radios Ship Y and asks for, say, a clearance code. Ship Z can't give one, and is summarily blown out of the sky.




5. My physics is better then your physics---
Short of a credential check, seems to be simply combative for the sake of being combative

Short of an debating technique check, this seems to be simply a strawman for the sake of being a strawman.


Not always so. It is much easier to hide a small object in space then a large object not only because of size, but also because stealth materials, ECM, decoys etc all of which be used to allow a smaller ship to sneak up to within firing range of a larger ship.

Unless you have an invincible active or passive sensor system (which seems like godmodding to me), there should be a chance for small fighter like ships to sneak up on and ambush a large capital ship in some tactical situations.


http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3w.html

Yes, there is some chance. Just very, very little.

Not for flexibility. An ICBM may have more bang for the buck then an F-22, but since we have never used ICBMs in war and fighters are commonly used, that is highly argueable.

Since this isn't an argument about ICBMs and F-22s, I have no problem completely disregarding that analogy.

ICBMs and most other missiles are designed for a single mission. Fighters can be used for a lot of different missions, including flying around and being intimidating.

Unless you have robotic fighters, and more importantly, are willing to trust their reliability and think all of the Science Fiction stories of robotic weapons turning on their masters is silly, having robotic fighters as a norm seems risky.

An excellent argument against fighters. Although, admittedly, algorithmic 'AI' would probably serve just as well as real AI when it comes to such a short-lived creature as a fighter.

Even setting aside that possibility, you are also assuming that your enemy will not at some point develop the ECM and EW capability to deflect, take over or simply massively confuse them to the point of uselessness. In other words, if you have an invincible missile

Yet another decent argument against fighters. You're doing quite well in defeating your own arguments. By all means, continue.

why can't I have an invincible computer virus that can take over that missile using its communications with its controller. If its invincible fire and forget, then there is no reason I can't have a beam that can allows me to fry its little computer brain.

...aaannnd somebody brought that idea in. Look, if you've already got spies so deep into the enemy camp that you can crack their security onboard their missiles, know all of their communication frequencies.. why are you bothering to use it on such a piddling matter as a virus? Wouldn't it be easier just to use this tactical data to, I don't know, annihilate the enemy. With guns'n'stuff?

"He who hurls the most lead wins."

That's a quote from some old soldier I forget the name of...and it applies 100% to any form of combat. Having carrier borne fighters in your inventory does one amazing thing for your fighting forces...it adds an element of first strike capability that a force with out them does not have.

Think of it like this...A modern fighter has a typical range of 2,100km. A modern fighter has the ability to fly 1000km, fire a missile which has a maximum range of upto and including 150km.

The Missouri's guns fired something like 38-40km max.

Think about this for a moment.

You done? Yeah, you might have just realized that the battlefleet with carriers in it could fight for a 1000km further than the one with out. It can damage and harass enemy fleets, sink enemy ships and completely ruin their day...and when your gun fleet finally gets to the carrier fleet, you have to put up with their battleships, cruisers, destroyers, frigates, etc.

Not to mention, a fleet with a combat air arm has the advantage of boosting their sensor range with patrol planes and extending their defensive reach with a combat air patrol. Incoming missiles can be intercepted by fighter before they reach the fleets defense bubble, however it may be configured. I'd prefer to prevent as many strikes against my shields as possible and with that added layer of defense that a Combat Air Patrol would provide there would be less pressure on gunnery crews controlling AA missiles and Flak Cannons...the more lead to spread the less likely you're going to get lanced.

The more guns you have the better.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v361/Auman/CarrierVsGun.jpg

Ok, so, here's a well drawn masterpiece of mine...the confusing black lines are your avenues of fire. The red dot is a carrier, defended by a series of picket ships like Battleships and Destroyers. The circles around the ships represent the maximum effective range of their defense systems. As you can see, both sides are well protected...however, the Carrier fleet has an advantage...

All those little red boxes flying around and helping to overwhelm the defenses of their enemy. While the carrier fleet has to defend from gunfire from a few directions, the other fleet has to contend with getting stung by a swarm of angry bees...One time I was playing paintball and little did I know I stepped on a wasp nest...in the middle of a firefight. I lost.

After reading more on this thread I have more arguments!

Why build a fighter when you can build a larger vessel that is just as maneuverable? Well, a larger vessel may not be neccessary. Why send a Cruiser to do the job that can be done by a smaller (see: cheaper) Fighter sized space craft? Why build fighters to fight in space where there is no friction? Well, what if you're going to be attacking highly sensitive ground targets, provide close ground support to your armies or trying to provoke a response from enemy ground batteries? All these missions are either too menial or too dangerous for a large ship to do...

is it can it be mods teim now pleez? Yes, yes it can. Try to argue with out flaming.

The fact that we're talking about the validity of fighters is really why I'm discussing air tactics. There are many fundamental facts that I brought forward in my argument for fighters. Also, you'll notice in my argument that I did not advocate removing Battleships and other Gun Carrying ships from the fleet...but just adding a dedicated carrier or two to an existing formation...rounding out the fleet and making it more versatile.

I think the problem here is that just because it is spaaaaaaaaaaaaace doesn't mean basic fundamentals of warfare should be completely ignored. If you have a carrier in your fleet you can fly recon craft ahead of your formation without dispatching larger, more valuable, vessels and risking them to ambush. You can aquire a more detailed picture of the overall battlefield with as much risk.

Arguement that space is too big for a fleet engagement to be likely-
historically, so are the oceans, and up until World War II the number of major battles fought out of sight of land could be counted on one hand.
The same in space. Space is infinitely larger than ocean. In ocean, you can at least block convoy routes, run interceptions, etc; in space, the vast scale makes the combat sensible only near planets.


That assumes that one ship cannot gain an acceleration and manuever advantage over another sufficient to allow it to close and dock. This too seems unlikely.
Seems likely to me. You can't just crack the decks open and board, and bashing the ships is likely to just crash them. It's way easier to resist boarding due to more hostile environment and possibility of automated weapons aboard.

Unless you have robotic fighters, and more importantly, are willing to trust their reliability and think all of the Science Fiction stories of robotic weapons turning on their masters is silly,
They are not science fiction, they are halfway between high fantasy and fairy tale. The anthropomorphism applied to computers is a pretty silly premise. Unlike humans, they lack the instincts which make humans seek power.


In other words, if you have an invincible missile, why can't I have an invincible computer virus that can take over that missile using its communications with its controller. If its invincible fire and forget, then there is no reason I can't have a beam that can allows me to fry its little computer brain.
True, but:
a) Proper programming can leave no backdoors allowing taking the control over. That's pretty easy to do. Although I'm afraid in FT spaceships actually do operate under some Micro$loth Windoze.
b) Human isn't harder to fry.
...However, human is harder to fool.


Sure, you can create the invincible capital ship, but most likely it would be too expensive to be risked. Look at the Navies during World War I. They had very large fleets of capital ships that were practically invincible (no battleship was sunk by gunfire, only battlecruisers were) but were so relectucant to face mines, submarines and light forces without overwhelming reason that they spent most of the war in port.
Which meant that the light ships fought most of the war.

In fact, while it is against most people's FT assumptions, armoring a spaceship is actually incredibly hard. That's hypervelocity: space makes possible such high velocities that the materials have no strength. That's it, no matter if it is steel, titanium, carbon nanotubes, mynationium, unobtainium or just ground, it doesn't matter, the protective value depends only on mass. There are no wonder armors in space. The best space armor is Whipple Shield - just many thin sheets separated by space.
Materials matter little, they are only about supporting this shield when the ship maneuvers. Which brings forward another issue: with the claimed accelerations, huge or very fine Whipple shields won't survive.

So spaceships would, realistically, stay pretty vulnerable, with the only protection against kinetic energy being shields which are basically the sacrificed part, gradually damaged by even relatively weak attacks. That's, of course, discounting shields, which are a pretty questionable idea anyway and so nothing tells a fighter can't carry them.

is it can it be mods teim now pleez? Yes, yes it can. Try to argue with out flaming.

The word 'fuck' does not automatically constitute a flame. Nor does me saying that I'm going to ignore the next person who comes in with an inane analogy. And, in fact, neither does saying you haven't read the thread - when you're ignoring arguments that have already been made.

I think the problem here is that just because it is spaaaaaaaaaaaaace doesn't mean basic fundamentals of warfare should be completely ignored.

The selfsame fundamentals that say you should use the best unit for the job? I assume these fundamentals tend to argue against the use of armoured knights against heavy artillery and machineguns, which, when you're looking at effective weapon range, is what fighters may as well be.

If you have a carrier in your fleet you can fly recon craft ahead of your formation without dispatching larger, more valuable, vessels and risking them to ambush. You can aquire a more detailed picture of the overall battlefield with as much risk.

Space isn't really that full. And ships aren't overly hard to detect. And, to be honest, what's the point in using fighter-craft for recon craft? What's wrong with the equivalent of a missile - a engine and a scanner, coupled with some relay equipment to get scans back to the ship. A fighter isn't an engine and a scanner. Nor is it an engine and a whole lotta explosives. Those are probes and missiles. We're arguing about the viability of fightercraft, and their useability in spaceship combat.

Not the useage of a probe 'net', missiles, destroyers, ground troops, or anything else. Fighters. If you're not going to address that argument - and I'll be polite, as so not to offend your delicate sensibilities, please don't come in here and argue. Like the guy who came in and decided it'd be fun to make fun of those arguing (yes, he only made himself look stupid, admittedly), if you're coming in any disregarding the arguments everyone else makes, and then arguing entirely new points, it doesn't lead to the people who have spent the past three or four pages arguing what we've been talking about being happy.

"He who hurls the most lead wins."

[snip snip for space saving]

Why build a fighter when you can build a larger vessel that is just as maneuverable? Well, a larger vessel may not be necessary. Why send a Cruiser to do the job that can be done by a smaller (see: cheaper) Fighter sized space craft? Why build fighters to fight in space where there is no friction? Well, what if you're going to be attacking highly sensitive ground targets, provide close ground support to your armies or trying to provoke a response from enemy ground batteries? All these missions are either too menial or too dangerous for a large ship to do...

you know, i like you. not only are your points well thought out, politely stated, and make sense.. but as an added bonus they express a lot of my own original thoughts far more clearly than i could myself.

[oddly, i apply similar logic in reverse to explain why a fleet should not give up battleships, but rather use both battleships And carriers, in MT. i get about the same attitude in responce you got here :S]

i had many many paragraphs at this point, but upon re-reading them i discovered every one to fall under either "irrelevant" or the "if you can't say something nice, say nothing", so I'll stop now.

[ahem] How long will it take for people to realize that space doesn't give high velocities, it only makes them possible. But you have to provide that velocity.... Yes. And? Whether I accelerate the capship itself or the fighter doesn't change the end result.

Well. Accelerating the whole capship costs significantly more in terms of energy. Presumably set off by being able to launch significantly more ordnance.

As in... *Thinks* Probably ~ three times more, judging my modern fighter/ ordnance ratios, although this is indeed a rather rough estimate.

2. The invincible capital ship argument-

Sure, you can create the invincible capital ship, but most likely it would be too expensive to be risked. Look at the Navies during World War I. They had very large fleets of capital ships that were practically invincible (no battleship was sunk by gunfire, only battlecruisers were) but were so relectucant to face mines, submarines and light forces without overwhelming reason that they spent most of the war in port.

Which meant that the light ships fought most of the war.In fairness, the war was also relatively short on amphibious operations - once you enter WW2's island hopping, you also see a happy number of full-scale naval engagements, no? And that's vastly closer to what you'll see in space than the trench warfare in north-eastern France.

Of course, there's also the question of what constitutes a capship - I've so far used the term loosely, using it for independently operating combatants capable of significant duration. Which is the kind of thing that was once called a 'Cruiser' and is nowadays called a 'Destroyer'. The classic dreadnought or carrier is just the upper end of the capship range.

Certainly, no capship is invincible - with the overpowering nature of NS-scale SciFi and space opera in general ("Sir, the enemy is hiding behind this planet!" - "So? Just shoot through that damned rock!") and the 'Equalising' nature of missiles with a yield-per-ton ratio six orders of magnitude above that of direct fire weapons (This is, after all, what helped to kill major non-carrier combatants IRL), there are considerably strict limits to the usefulness of multi-kilometre ships, unless one includes superconducting, superradiating perfect-defence-everywhere shields. I am personally in favour of 'Cruiser' fleets - medium sized 'Allrounders' (Well, to an extend). Not ginormous battleships.

But of course, the question is not whether a medium-sized vessel can be dangerous to a super-combatant - the question is why one should bother with fighters. More specifically, why one should bother with fighters as a means to attack major combatants (I believe that their defensive value to deal with missiles hasn't been questioned overly much). And given the basic properties of space, this particular use of fighters - as missile busses - is questioned.

3. Planets produce everything they need---

This is like saying nations produce everything they need. It isn't so, unless and this is a big unless, ALL planets are of equal tech level, industrialization, and productive capacity. Which seems more fantasy then science fiction, as even in periods of history prior to industrialization, when tech level and productive capacity was fairly equatable, specialization was valuable enough to create trade.

In a lot of settings, most planets are going to be more like a frontier area or 3rd world nation then an industrialized fully developed economy.Irrelevant. If any given attacker bothers with attacking near-pointless colonial planets with sub-million populations and negligible industrial capacity, I feel sorry for him and use the forces I don't spend on defending more-or-less useless rocks to hammer his industrial base to pieces.

As a rule of thumb, one will try to attack targets that are of actual value to the enemy. Well, unless you're the Imperial Japanese Navy and are hot on stealing the aleutes, anyway.

4. You can't board a ship thus piracy is impossible---

That assumes that one ship cannot gain an acceleration and manuever advantage over another sufficient to allow it to close and dock. This too seems unlikely.*Watches the pirate get smashed as two ships moving at .01c touch each other vaguely, resulting in very, very bad things*

It's true that piracy isn't entirely impossible - but it'd typically be moving away from boarding and into "If you don't transfer $Sum_Of_Money on $Account, we're going to send kinetic mines your way. Bai." Kinda like modern indonesian pirates. "If you don't pay us a couple thousand bucks, we're shooting our AKs at you. Repairing the few holes is gonna cost you ten times that."

Of course, this is assuming that it's a pretty hard-SciFi-ish scenario. Which dies once you reach space opera & FTL.

Lets see, NS... A million billion different FTL methods. The 'Classical' ones - 40K warptravel, SW hyperdrive, B5 hyperspace, ST warpdrive - are difficult or impossible to intercept even if both sides use the same propulsion method. Nevermind the problem of interdicting interstellar transports when the two sides use unique methods.

And all discontinuous FTL methods make piracy over interstellar distances outright impossible in the first place.

Remains in-system piracy. Now, it isn't impossible - with tractor beams sucking up KE and spilling it into nowhere, and displacers allowing non-physical boarding (We'll ignore the problem of different inertial frames of reference and how a displace could thus have terrifying effects for the displaced individual), your chances aren't all that bad.

Sadly, there's also local forces that'll likely stop by nearly as soon as you try something.

If you go for a 'Piracy' angle, try the privateer who blows the hell outta stuff and runs as soon as that's done, hoping to get paid by whichever government pays him/ her.

It's safer. I'm not saying it's as much fun - I've boarding space pirates myself -, but the latter's decidedly dangerous, and difficult to pull off.

7. Bigger is better --

Not always so. It is much easier to hide a small object in space then a large object not only because of size, but also because stealth materials, ECM, decoys etc all of which be used to allow a smaller ship to sneak up to within firing range of a larger ship. Unless you have an invincible active or passive sensor system (which seems like godmodding to me), there should be a chance for small fighter like ships to sneak up on and ambush a large capital ship in some tactical situations.Given that IIRC, NASA tracks a metric fuckton of stuff a centimetre in diameter in orbit...

Stealth materials - which in SciFi scenarios wont get away with just absorbing/ redirecting microwaves - are problematic because they make radiating heat off difficult. More to the point, to be stealthy, you need to keep your heat with you - which only works for a limited amount of time -, or radiate it in a direction you hope nobody's looking at. The former is only possible for very limited timeframes, and reduces your survivability once you're shot, and the latter's a dangerous game once someone does start looking.

More to the point, this does - again - say nothing about why a stealth fighter would be better than a stealth missile in engaging capships.

8 Missiles are superior to fighters --

Not for flexibility. An ICBM may have more bang for the buck then an F-22, but since we have never used ICBMs in war and fighters are commonly used, that is highly argueable. ICBMs and most other missiles are designed for a single mission. Fighters can be used for a lot of different missions, including flying around and being intimidating.It's nice to see that you haven't noticed anything of what has been said so far. The value of fighters as a means to defend against incoming ordnance or to engage in small-scale planetary warfare is more-or-less undisputed. The claim that fighters are better than missiles in engaging major combatants is what's disputed.

Unless you have robotic fightersCheck. Have 'em.

and more importantly, are willing to trust their reliability and think all of the Science Fiction stories of robotic weapons turning on their masters is sillyCheck. Trust in their reliability. And there's no 'Master - Slave' relationship, thank you very much. 's soon as something's sapient, it gets its citizenship, regardless of whether its brain is made from gray matter & neurons or metal & optronics.

This said, most of the dronecraft would be subsapient, and run on pretty algorithms, as our CIWS does since, uh, the seventies, I believe.

Even setting aside that possibility, you are also assuming that your enemy will not at some point develop the ECM and EW capability to deflect, take over or simply massively confuse them to the point of uselessness.And where is the difference to the effect on human pilots...? If your shiny EM sensors don't see anything beyond the eyeball Mk I's field of vision, you're screwed regardless of whether there's a subsapient algorithm controlling the machine, or a sapient human.

And 's soon as the machine's sapient, 'Hacking' it becomes mildly difficult - if your opponent has the ability to hack something sapient, he can likely do the same with a human, too.

In other words, if you have an invincible missile, why can't I have an invincible computer virus that can take over that missile using its communications with its controller.For starters, you're assuming that the missile's remote controlled, which is rather unlikely to be the case...

If its invincible fire and forget, then there is no reason I can't have a beam that can allows me to fry its little computer brain.Yes, frying a missile's electronics is one of the lines of defence everyone has. Congrats on catching up with Reagan's Strategic Defence Initiative.

Also, I think it's kinda hilarious that you're ranting about your invincible (If poorly thought out) defences, while nobody here has actually argued about missiles being 'Invincible'. Just, well, better at hurting capships than fighters are.

Maybe you should work on your reading comprehension?

<snip>Alright. Now that you've figured out wet navy tactics, lets try the actual topic of the thread, which bothers itself with tactics in space...

I think the problem here is that just because it is spaaaaaaaaaaaaace doesn't mean basic fundamentals of warfare should be completely ignored. If you have a carrier in your fleet you can fly recon craft ahead of your formation without dispatching larger, more valuable, vessels and risking them to ambush. You can aquire a more detailed picture of the overall battlefield with as much risk.I do that with remote drones, specialised for their task, tyvm.

The same in space. Space is infinitely larger than ocean. In ocean, you can at least block convoy routes, run interceptions, etc; in space, the vast scale makes the combat sensible only near planets.'Near' being relative. Five lightseconds for direct engagements, fifty to hundred lightseconds when missiles are flung about sound perfectly sensible for reasonably hard SciFi.

And the upper limit depends entirely on how hard you're willing to wank. *Watches a ROU playfully indulging in battle-simulations*

... Yes. And? Whether I accelerate the capship itself or the fighter doesn't change the end result.
Actually it does.
In the fighter, you have the pilot sitting in the special suit in a predesigned position, and you can accelerate it probably at 10-12g.
In the ship, you have a lot of crew everywhere, and, assuming you rotate the ship properly, you can accelerate it at 2g, maybe 2.5 if a lot of crew stop working.

That's whole 25 times difference in the end result.


Well. Accelerating the whole capship costs significantly more in terms of energy. Presumably set off by being able to launch significantly more ordnance.
As in... *Thinks* Probably ~ three times more, judging my modern fighter/ ordnance ratios, although this is indeed a rather rough estimate.
Three times more, maybe up to five times more. It doesn't set off that all these munitions are 25 times less powerful and have 5 times higher time to target.

Plus you also increase the impact velocity of enemy munitions. Double it, most likely. You add him 4 times more damage, and you ship becomes closer and so easier to hit.
But, if you accelerate fighters, you only risk them. And fighters can maneuver their way out of even guided munition attacks, because the velocities are too high to be changed rapidly. The ship is larger and more predictable, so the munitions will correct their course.


Of course, there's also the question of what constitutes a capship - I've so far used the term loosely, using it for independently operating combatants capable of significant duration. Which is the kind of thing that was once called a 'Cruiser' and is nowadays called a 'Destroyer'.
Actually the term "capital ship" is defined IRL as the most powerful categories of ships the nation has. The prime heavy combatants - battleships before WWII, carriers after they proved themselves superior. Usually it starts from battlecruiser.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_ship



'Near' being relative. Five lightseconds for direct engagements, fifty to hundred lightseconds when missiles are flung about sound perfectly sensible for reasonably hard SciFi.
Of course.
Still, that has an implication. Specifically the one that some bases are often nearby and can do the resupply between battles. Simpler, compact fighters are obviously way easier to rush-produce and faster to replace rather than repairing entire ships. They are more expendable.

Actually it does.
In the fighter, you have the pilot sitting in the special suit in a predesigned position, and you can accelerate it probably at 10-12g.
In the ship, you have a lot of crew everywhere, and, assuming you rotate the ship properly, you can accelerate it at 2g, maybe 2.5 if a lot of crew stop working.

That's whole 25 times difference in the end result.Ummm... The vast majority of actual SciFi nations in this thread tend to have inertial handwavium that un-extants the problem. I mean, a couple hundred gees are standard, I believe, and a couple thousand not exactly unheard of (And in my personal case - what crew?). Really - the word 'cfrac' Tannelorn used should've given you an idea about just how 'Hard' it is (Which is to say, not at all). After all, you don't usually manage cfrac in the time an engagement takes when you pull anything less than tripledigit gees.

Hell, IIRC, Tannelorn manages something on the order of fifty kilogees.

So, yeah. In the hard scenarios where this is indeed of concern, 'Cfrac' is unlikely to be attained (And missiles with fragmentation warheads win), and in the soft scenarios it's of no concern.

Plus you also increase the impact velocity of enemy munitions. Double it, most likely. You add him 4 times more damage, and you ship becomes closer and so easier to hit.Well, yes - thing is of course, a cfrac attack will usually happen as a surprise attack (Yes, I know - acceleration will be noticed. One usually goes around the problem by exiting $FTL at a fair fraction of c in the first place), as such, one might want to risk it. Nevermind that you'd usually break off at a distance of 10+ lightseconds, so the risk is... 'Acceptable', if there.
Admittedly, it still comes about as close to 'Why ligher ordnance-carriers might be preferable' as it gets.

Whether the pilots - if there are any. Automated cfrac busses are perfectly sufficient - like the idea of being used as cannonfodder is another question.

And fighters can maneuver their way out of even guided munition attacks, because the velocities are too high to be changed rapidly.Doubt it. The reaction times required are positively absurd. This does, admittedly, hold true for incoming munitions as well - hence, area-effecting waves of sand and high-beamspread fire.

Actually the term "capital ship" is defined IRL as the most powerful categories of ships the nation has. The prime heavy combatants - battleships before WWII, carriers after they proved themselves superior. Usually it starts from battlecruiser.As I said - the way I used the term. Though admittedly, this did in part stem from my somewhat unusual fleet organisation, which only distinguishes between two kinds of major combatant, which - in terms of role - could be defined as something between destroyer & cruiser, and something between cruiser & battleship (Not a battlecruiser, though), respectively.

But, not wanting to go the path of Godular - ok. Might've confused some people.

Still, that has an implication. Specifically the one that some bases are often nearby and can do the resupply between battles. Simpler, compact fighters are obviously way easier to rush-produce and faster to replace rather than repairing entire ships. They are more expendable.The thing is, what are the fighters used for? Missiles would be even simpler (Okay, slightly simpler) to produce, not require training, and be used to snipe ships.

Certainly, the interception role of the 'Fighter' to deal with incoming ordnance remains - indeed, considering a planet with potentially billions of inhabitants on the ground, the ability to intercept the continent crackers typically flung about does definitely play a major role, and makes a fighter/ (Independent) missile-based approach on defence preferable to one that emphasises major combatants (Destroyer+), if and when one's already under siege.

No disagreement there.

Just, if one wants to win a conflict, one has to project force - which necessiates more sizeable combatants -, and fighters working in a role other than forming extended defensive perimeters remain an inferior option.

I'm going to keep my question(s) short:

There has been a lot of talk about the infrastructure of planets that they have no need for interplanetary trade.

Then what about starbases?

Then there was the little gem about that all planets can make or support their own SDs...

What about planetoids, moons, and astroids? Those little tiny specks of 'land' in the middle of the 'ocean'...

Plus, suitable 'docks' take time to build at a colony, much like terra-forming (although faster), and until they are constructed, what then? Park a SD in orbit for 50 years until the dock is finished?

This would be me questioning the validity of these often overlooked claims that are assumed to be true.
------
Rebuttle:
Large ships are far from 'sneeky' and are not much use in 'black ops', or have the distances and sensors involved made covert operations obsolete as well?

Fighters may present as little danger as razor wire on the battlefield, but it is still infinitely useful at detecting an impending attack, or slowing down an advance. They are 'speed bumps' during the opening days of war, and for the rest of the war, they function mostly in jobs that would be too costly or risky for larger and more expensive ships, but not so risky that it is a one way mission.

The vast majority of actual SciFi nations in this thread tend to have inertial handwavium that un-extants the problem.
Well, that's not hard FT by any means.
I'm talking mostly about hard FT, because what happens in FFT is determined exclusively by convention, not any physics laws. Th convention can give any properties to everything.

Doubt it. The reaction times required are positively absurd. This does, admittedly, hold true for incoming munitions as well - hence, area-effecting waves of sand and high-beamspread fire.
Not really. At even 10000km/s (which is more than it seems: 2500 megatons in a 2-tonne projectile) a lightsecond presents quite a lot of time to maneuver. And nobody said it must be fully hand-controlled.

Intercepting these munitions would be hard as well: melting with beams or a hit is pointless, even a gas cloud will kill the ship; any armor is plain useless; and the impulse to change their direction must be massive.
So keeping the ship away is a good idea.


The thing is, what are the fighters used for? Missiles would be even simpler (Okay, slightly simpler) to produce, not require training, and be used to snipe ships.
Well, besides interception, and I'd add interception of anti-ship projectiles, fighters can be used for KE munition delivery without risking the ship (as much), surprise strikes, and just encircling the enemy. Admittedly, that loses point in FFT where physics don't matter, but IRL an encircled ship just can't maneuver - it will accelerate into the munitions.
Also, both fighters and ships are obliterated the same by KE munitions, but they just won't hit the fighters, too much hassle and too unpredictable. Their only problem is beams, which have limited range due to spread. Having combatants, and I mean it, combatants, which can attack the enemy from any angle, are near-invincible at long-range, can intercept munitions, force the enemy to ditch some missiles in favor of beams, and which can encircle the opponents and stop maneuvering - that's a good tactical advantage. The problem in space combat, particularly hard FT, is that size is no longer a valid defense against munitions blasting a ship in one hit, and therefore numbers matter more.

Well, that's not hard FT by any means.
I'm talking mostly about hard FT, because what happens in FFT is determined exclusively by convention, not any physics laws. Th convention can give any properties to everything.

Alastair Reynolds-easque hard FT where the restrictions on technology make it little more than high-PMT tech? Or NS hard FT where everything is still based on physics-breaking technology to the point that it's silly?


Not really. At even 10000km/s (which is more than it seems: 2500 megatons in a 2-tonne projectile) a lightsecond presents quite a lot of time to maneuver. And nobody said it must be fully hand-controlled.

.05c is not in any way fast. In fact unless you're within 10k km of said enemy ship, you're probably never going to hit anything of value.

Intercepting these munitions would be hard as well: melting with beams or a hit is pointless, even a gas cloud will kill the ship; any armor is plain useless; and the impulse to change their direction must be massive.
So keeping the ship away is a good idea.

No, a gas cloud will not. Gas has this thing with increasing its surface area in low pressure systems, and in space this is more than true: the gas cloud will be either absorbed by the armor (assuming shields are down, or that shields don't intercept such weak things) or deflected by basic shields. The problem with beam weapons is ensuring that the beam has enough energy to totally vaporize the projectile, and that the beam has made contact for the sufficient amount of time so that the projectile doesn't just turn into a molten kinetic kill vehicle.

As far as maneuverability goes: FT warships have enough energy to move at a greater speed than .2c, generally, and can generally move out of the way without much problem. The armor, which you seem to think is useless, does an adequate job depending on how horribly wanky the player makes it.

Well, besides interception, and I'd add interception of anti-ship projectiles, fighters can be used for KE munition delivery without risking the ship (as much), surprise strikes, and just encircling the enemy. Admittedly, that loses point in FFT where physics don't matter, but IRL an encircled ship just can't maneuver - it will accelerate into the munitions.

... Have we not already covered this ground? A cheap missile can deliver kinetic ordnance better than a fighter, and can impart more energy onto it to make it go faster. This being an affect of not having useless fighter parts all over it. Surprise? How? A fighter radiates heat when moving just as anything else does, and as well reflects radiation. The type that don't are so expensive that you'd have to use sapient missiles to save money in producing fighter-parts for the stealthy material.

Also an encirclement doesn't... mean anything. For one things, fighters don't usually go as fast as other ships given the reaction times of human pilots (unless you go for AI then that doesn't matter so much) and also have the problem of being blasted by the various anti-fighter defenses mentioned throughout this discussion. Also I can encircle a tank with peasants armed with throwing pitchforks, does that give me any inherent advantage? Nope.

Also, both fighters and ships are obliterated the same by KE munitions, but they just won't hit the fighters, too much hassle and too unpredictable. Their only problem is beams, which have limited range due to spread. Having combatants, and I mean it, combatants, which can attack the enemy from any angle, are near-invincible at long-range, can intercept munitions, force the enemy to ditch some missiles in favor of beams, and which can encircle the opponents and stop maneuvering - that's a good tactical advantage. The problem in space combat, particularly hard FT, is that size is no longer a valid defense against munitions blasting a ship in one hit, and therefore numbers matter more.

A fighter is vulnerable to the faster, and more agile anti-fighter missile, which negates the supposed advantage of having them in the first place. Also this ignores shields (yes, I sense you're arguing hard FT in a thread... not dedicated to the concept which I'm not sure you even understand in the first place, but still) which can more than absorb the damage of a KE round if said ship has the energy reserve to decimate entire continents with a single blast.

Well, that's not hard FT by any means.
I'm talking mostly about hard FT, because what happens in FFT is determined exclusively by convention, not any physics laws. Th convention can give any properties to everything.Not really, but I don't particularly desire to discuss this aspect.

Still, curious - if you're arguing about hard SciFi, why the hell are you even considering cfractional kinetic strikes? The energy required to accelerate significant amounts of mass to such velocities, the materials needed to survive said energies, the shields needed to avoid being shredded by spacedy dust...

That's not 'Hard' SciFi by any means. 'Hard' SciFi sees you tugging along at maybe a hundred km/s, shooting each other with lasers & particle beams of questionable range, and missile busses launching rains of nukes - among other things, 'Hard' SciFi also depends on reaction mass, which makes fighters unsuitable for basically everything, as they're absurdly costly, have troubles returning, and constitute wastemass, nothing else.

Not really. At even 10000km/s (which is more than it seems: 2500 megatons in a 2-tonne projectile) a lightsecond presents quite a lot of time to maneuver. And nobody said it must be fully hand-controlled.*Munition follows* Really, the (Small, in this case, I think) missile has just the same time its target has - when both are working under the same conditions, both have the same chance to evade/ hit. Granted, a frontal attack sucks, and turning around just sees the missile completely outranged - but a nice carpet of sanded fragmentation warheads... And of course, no different from a missile.

Intercepting these munitions would be hard as well: melting with beams or a hit is pointless, even a gas cloud will kill the shipVaporising does tend to help, if it happens far enough off - gas clouds tend to disperse, and if you get it to spread enough, you're saved.

This does, of course, require distance (And I've little idea on how much of the same), but it's most definitely possible.

So keeping the ship away is a good idea.It's a tradeoff - with the ship, you can deploy a massive amount of ordnance quite rapidly. But you risk the ship.

With the smallcraft, you can only deploy a fraction of this ordnance, but you only risk a fraction of your own assets.

Personal preference, I'd say. I would rather go for achiving a maximum amount of initial damage, even if it means taking a risk - otherwise, what's the point of a cfrac strike?

Well, besides interception, and I'd add interception of anti-ship projectiles, fighters can be used for KE munition delivery without risking the ship (as much), surprise strikes, and just encircling the enemy.Well, the first I've agreed with since my first post here. The second I find ineffective - yes, it reduces risks, but it kinda defeats the point of the strike when the damage you're doing is insignificant anyway.

And a cfrac strike kinda has to be a surprise attack, or the enemy's already moving god alone knows where and cannot be effectively hit.

Surprise strikes do, frankly, not apply - once more, there's no reason for missiles not to achive the same with greater efficiency.

And encircling in the three-dimensonal, 'We've gaps measuring hundreds of thousands of kilometres!' environment of space is... A myth.

Nevermind that encircling with something that doesn't do damage (Other than through either frantically accelerating from all directions at once, which is... 'Difficult' to set up to say the least, or carrying ordnance that could do the same job alone) isn't overly useful.

I've decried these analogies time and time again. Space combat is not WW2, nor is it WW2. There's no perfect analogy for space combat - they can be used in a limited, limited fashion, but when people try and base their arguments off them, I don't feel inclined to take them seriously.

Since you are approaching this in a point by point debating style I will respond to you that way. For one thing, I was talking about World War I, NOT World War II. Without any human experience in the warfare being discussed, all we have to use is historical experience and to try to make some sort of sense out of an extremely vague discussion where we have no idea of the exact technology involved, time frame other then vaguely in the future. So unless you have something besides your own opinions to offer, why shouldn't we use historical analogies, as there is no reason to believe you are uniquely qualified to the point that your opinion is automatically acceptable without question.



Look. Chances are that a planet, or the asteroids in nearby belts will have abundant metal resources. Furthermore, it is unlikely that you'll colonize a planet with no ability to produce its own food.

Once again you are assuming all societies and planets are equal, all civilizations and planetary colonies develop at the same time and rate. Why is that a good assumption?



Of course it was. But it doesn't necessarily mean an entire planet is going to be specialized. You'll have specialized trades on the planet, but it doesn't mean everyone on Planet X will be a mechanic. For the most part, a planet should be able to produce a lot of what it needs - if not all, because a planet that's capable of supporting three billion people may not also be able to support the frigates and planetary landing craft to feed them.

See above.

Our planet supports a figure rapidly approaching 7 Billion, but only a small proportion of those people actually are in societies that can build nuclear carriers (the modern tech equivilant of futuristic starships) or even fighters for that matter.

Once again, you are assuming a society that is unified on a scale that encompasses everyone on every planet as far as I can tell from your arguement.


Good to see you've again supported your arguments beyond 'this too seems unlikely'. But, let's look at the situation. Assume an open path between Planet A and Planet B, for the sheer sake of conjecture (or, alternatively, assume anything inbetween is littered with active sensors).

Now, Ship X is going from A to B. Ship Y wants to pirate it. Assume we have, say, one decent-sized ship (Z) going along with the freighter fleet. Since it's impossible to hide at engagement ranges, Ship Z radios Ship Y and asks for, say, a clearance code. Ship Z can't give one, and is summarily blown out of the sky.[/QUOTE]

You are automatically assuming that all shipping is always convoyed. And that as a norm merchant ships are armed. Since even in the 19th Century, the last time any merchant routinely had weapons in peacetime only a small percentage of those crews actually drilled with those weapons, or carried more then a token amount. In short, a merchant ship is not a capable warship while most pirate crews were at least trained in using their weapons.

And why is it impossible to hide at engagement ranges? Because you say so? You are assuming everyone is once again accepting your opinion of what is or isn't possible.


Short of an debating technique check, this seems to be simply a strawman for the sake of being a strawman.

Since you are the one who has taken the sarcastic tone, and aside from your constant attempt to discredit everyone you have cited no sources, why should we accept that anyone besides you is the strawman here?



Since this isn't an argument about ICBMs and F-22s, I have no problem completely disregarding that analogy.

ICBMs and fighters were discussed earlier in the thread. Feel free to read those posts.


An excellent argument against fighters. Although, admittedly, algorithmic 'AI' would probably serve just as well as real AI when it comes to such a short-lived creature as a fighter.

Actually I was discussing missiles, why should anyone accept that I was discussing fighters besides you?



Yet another decent argument against fighters. You're doing quite well in defeating your own arguments. By all means, continue.

Just because your sarcasm says something is so doesn't mean that it is so.



...aaannnd somebody brought that idea in. Look, if you've already got spies so deep into the enemy camp that you can crack their security onboard their missiles, know all of their communication frequencies.. why are you bothering to use it on such a piddling matter as a virus? Wouldn't it be easier just to use this tactical data to, I don't know, annihilate the enemy. With guns'n'stuff?

You are familiar with Electronic Warfare and Cyber warfare correct? Its being waged routinely now as we speak by a variety of nations. Without the need for moles in the system.

Incidently, the purpose of war is not generally extermination (with notable exceptions) but to enforce your will on them. If its more cost effective to take over their systems or sow confusion to the point of an enemy collapse, then destruction isn't required.

By the way, you ignored my arguements on how size doesnt a fighter make (Honor Harrington series), and the usefulness of light forces outside of a fleet engagement.

So if you follow you own style and previous history in this thread, I guess we can assume you accept them or can't refute them.

[QUOTE=Der Angst;12433822 Maybe you should work on your reading comprehension?

*[/QUOTE]

my reading comprehension is fine thank you. How's yours, as my point was that if you as a player (any player, not just you specifically) says your handwavium allows you to do X, then there is no reason me (or any other other player) can't say "my handwavium allows me to do Y"

Incidently, if you read the book "The Great War at Sea" you would know that World War I did indeed have a number of amphibious assaults, and for the most part they succeeded (at least tactically). Even at Gallopolli they got ashore, even if the generals and technology made the effort wasted.

Your other assumptions are based on everyone projecting the future the way you do.

Besides, the thread title is whether fighters are obsolete in Future Tech, and there are plenty of reasoned arguements in this thread why that isn't the case depending on what version of the future the reader has.

Incidently, saying NASA (actually its NORAD and NASA in cooperation) can track small objects in Earth orbit is comparing apples and oranges. That technology requires a global system of very sizeable installations, and in space terms is practically point blank range.

Incidently, we are far more likely to see fighter sized armed spacecraft in the near (next century) then anything else. If sticking to hard sci fi rules of what is possible based on what is known now, then fighters are more likely then battleships in any case.

If we use space opera rules, then anything is possible with enough handwavium.

*Munition follows* Really, the (Small, in this case, I think) missile has just the same time its target has - when both are working under the same conditions, both have the same chance to evade/ hit.
Not exactly. The munition needs more effort to change the direction its huge velocity, while the fighter moving perpendicularly and slower can change it at ease.

Well, the first I've agreed with since my first post here. The second I find ineffective - yes, it reduces risks, but it kinda defeats the point of the strike when the damage you're doing is insignificant anyway.
Insignificant? Is destruction of a ship insignificant to you?
A single 1-tonne munition at high velocity will achieve it. And the velocity isn't "cfrac", it's maybe 1/1000c - that's more than enough to blast a ship into non-existence.

Nevermind that encircling with something that doesn't do damage If you don't like the term "damage", call it "elimination". The realities of space KE attacks are such that a small fighter can incinerate a dozen of large ships if they don't resist. Well, their PD will help somewhat, so a group of fighters has to take on a ship, but still - every attack has considerable chances of ship elimination.

it isn't very different in MT, in fact: a single fighter can carry enough ordnance to destroy a few battleships (w/o CIWS). The Fritz X missile, 1500-kg WWII weapon which successfully sunk a battleship and almost destroyed a couple more, proves that. Missiles were the reason why no more ships were built with armor, and ones designed with it were scrapped. But the disparity of weapons and protection is even more prominent in space.

There is also the stand off attack issue. A fighter kilogram per kilogram can carry a huge weapons load as it sacrifices habitability and range for payload.

There is no reason so far that I can see other then "my warship has inpenetrable point defenses" that some of the people in this thread have proposed to assume that fighters with a large payload couldn't indeed be cost effective enough to be extremely dangeorus in a fleet engagement.

Unless computer and electronic weapons capability are determined by size, enough missiles could swamp a fleet. Fighters allow you to indeed deliver a potentially stand off attack without having to send them in to face the defensive fire of a defending fleet.

Now some RPs and Sci Fi models do indeed make that assumption so yes in those particular situations, the fighter might indeed be obsolete in a fleet action. But should still have a great deal of usefullness in supporting roles and strikes against less strongly defended targets then a major world with strong defenses or a fleet.

So I gues my point is that the fighter is only obsolete in certain FT RPs if those players say so.

<snip>I think I'll take your failure to address any of the points raised, and the outbreak of sheer ego that replaced any attempt at civilised discussion as concession.

Why, thanks.

Not exactly. The munition needs more effort to change the direction its huge velocity, while the fighter moving perpendicularly and slower can change it at ease.Ummm. I think we're talking about two very different things.

Fighter moving at a significant fraction of c - munition moving at a roughly similar speed. Either following each other, or featuring opposite velocities. 's it as far as I can see. But maybe you had something different in mind...?

Insignificant? Is destruction of a ship insignificant to you?No. But it has to hit the ship first... With fighters - particularly when launching mere 300 km/s projectiles - I've rather strong doubts about it.

A single 1-tonne munition at high velocity will achieve it. And the velocity isn't "cfrac", it's maybe 1/1000c - that's more than enough to blast a ship into non-existence.You must have missed the bit where Tannelorn started to discuss cfracs - quite explicitly, no less. Hence, why the conversation revolved around them - and with you not stating that you meant something different, but referencing my reply to Tannelorn, well...

If you don't like the term "damage", call it "elimination". The realities of space KE attacks are such that a small fighter can incinerate a dozen of large ships if they don't resist.Nice how you sidestepped the problem of managing the 'Encircling' in the first place, which is exceedingly unlikely to happen. The example you're providing is roughly similar to suggesting that bunch of small motor boats with tacnukes on board, encircling a carrier group can cause significant damage to it.

Well, congrats. The question is how they got there unopposed. The answer is, of course - they didn't. You can forget 'Encircling' because your opponent will move as well. He can also engage the fighters veritable ages before they enter 'No escape' range, with a considerable variety of means, ranging from widebeam fire, over sanding, to interceptor missiles and nuclear saturation. Nevermind that he can keep them at that distance if he wants to.

All the while maneuvering quite happily and evading the shots. Worse, if it's pure kinetic ordnance without its own propulsion, your opponent can outrun it, and escaping the attack becomes a matter of, well, humorous ease If it has propulsion, well, why the fighters?). Hell, in a best-case scenario, it's slower than an orbited planets' escape velocity. This still gives it, oh, about ten km/s to play with, and changing its direction by a handful of degrees, waiting for an impact to occur in ten seconds - wham, missed.

Amusingly, a missile - still not needing the extra-stage that is the fighter - could adjust its course, be it kinetic or carrying an actual warhead, but hey.

it isn't very different in MT, in fact: a single fighter can carry enough ordnance to destroy a few battleships (w/o CIWS). The Fritz X missile, 1500-kg WWII weapon which successfully sunk a battleship and almost destroyed a couple more, proves that.I thought we'd already pointed out that the advantages fighters have vs. wet ships do no longer exist in space, making fighters all but useless for all these things, as they can be just as well be done without them...?

There is also the stand off attack issue. A fighter kilogram per kilogram can carry a huge weapons load as it sacrifices habitability and range for payload.

There is no reason so far that I can see other then "my warship has inpenetrable point defenses" that some of the people in this thread have proposed to assume that fighters with a large payload couldn't indeed be cost effective enough to be extremely dangeorus in a fleet engagement.Which wonderfully sidesteps the 'Why not have a missile do it?' question. Congrats on continuing to miss the entire point of the argument.

I thought we'd already pointed out that the advantages fighters have vs. wet ships do no longer exist in space, making fighters all but useless for all these things, as they can be just as well be done without them...?
Could you just sort out the list of advantages that big ships have in space over fighters?

Both carry weapons sufficient to eliminate the other.


But it has to hit the ship first... With fighters - particularly when launching mere 300 km/s projectiles - I've rather strong doubts about it.
Let's say it's a 100..200-tonne one and its payload is 10*2700kg, just for simplicity.
3e5^2*2700/2 = 4e13 = 1e7*4e6 = 10,000,000kg of TNT = 10 kilotons. This is greater than Hiroshima, since these 10kt are delivered without losses on radiation. Surviving that takes more than just a big spaceship. Now, ten of these.

And 300km/s isn't that fast, it may be not super-hard FT, but still not FFT for sure.


Worse, if it's pure kinetic ordnance without its own propulsion, your opponent can outrun it, and escaping the attack becomes a matter of, well, humorous ease
Nope. The ship, with even a little bit of realism, can't accelerate as fast as a missile or a fighter. Even if you have these wanky annulators, the ship's equipment takes a lot of space, while the fighter is half engines, without even long-range fuel. If it's a bit realistic and you don't, fighters are faster.

But, well, even if it's absolute wankfest and the ship accelerates as fast - that's where encirclement comes handy. There's a lot of fighters, they can do it: they only need to have 10-20 around the ship. As the ship starts to run away from one, it runs right into the others' munitions. Smart and with propulsion.


Why fighters? A truly stand-off weapon. They don't need wings and the like, they may be even heavier, they are just the thing which can get missiles here, there or around there, and all without wasting their single-use engine.

I think I'll take your failure to address any of the points raised, and the outbreak of sheer ego that replaced any attempt at civilised discussion as concession.

Why, thanks.

Well if you insist on personal attacks against people who don't have your apparantly god like knowledge of exactly how the future is going to shape itself, no need for any of of the rest of the us to refrain.

The two most inflated egos in this thread appear to be you and one other, who have made by far the most trolllike responses, and used the most sarcasm and rhetoric.

Your welcome.


Nobody is sidestepping your points, its simply that a number of posters in this thread fail to see that you have adequately defended your rhetoric with anything beyond your own opinion. Your defense is usually a nasty attack on anyone who disagrees with you.

Perhaps some therapy would cure your angst?


Simply put, you haven't convinced those who respond to you that you are right and we are wrong when the parameters of the discussion.

Futuretech, fighters and why they are obsolete is so broad as to make you points impossible to prove without very specific technological guidelines based on a very specific scientific framework that may or may not be valid based on future knowledge.

As its entirely an academic argument, that cannot be proven, our opinions have as much validity as yours.

And generally speaking, those who are arguing on the side I have taken have generally remained at least polite.

Perhaps you could work on your reading comprehension and learn from those people who can take a side without seeing the need to insult the other.

Since you are approaching this in a point by point debating style I will respond to you that way. For one thing, I was talking about World War I, NOT World War II. Without any human experience in the warfare being discussed, all we have to use is historical experience and to try to make some sort of sense out of an extremely vague discussion where we have no idea of the exact technology involved, time frame other then vaguely in the future. So unless you have something besides your own opinions to offer, why shouldn't we use historical analogies, as there is no reason to believe you are uniquely qualified to the point that your opinion is automatically acceptable without question.

Fallacy of analogy. You cannot compare two unlike things and call them the same. Historical experience with air combat WILL NOT give us any indication as to how things will perform in space. Trying to use WWI, WWII, Korea, or the latest stint in Iraq will not tell you how a space fighter will perform, only inferences from established facts and observations of the environment applied to the fighter concept can.


Our planet supports a figure rapidly approaching 7 Billion, but only a small proportion of those people actually are in societies that can build nuclear carriers (the modern tech equivilant of futuristic starships) or even fighters for that matter.

Are you trying to argue that planets are not self-sufficient or what?

You are automatically assuming that all shipping is always convoyed. And that as a norm merchant ships are armed. Since even in the 19th Century, the last time any merchant routinely had weapons in peacetime only a small percentage of those crews actually drilled with those weapons, or carried more then a token amount. In short, a merchant ship is not a capable warship while most pirate crews were at least trained in using their weapons.

Space is different than the ocean, and that's all I need to say.

And why is it impossible to hide at engagement ranges? Because you say so? You are assuming everyone is once again accepting your opinion of what is or isn't possible.

His is more based on fact than yours which relies on impossible-to-apply analogies of history. You can't hide at engagement ranges because of these things called sensors which make trek-easque cloaking an impossibility the closer you get to the target. This also doesn't answer as to how a stealthied missile wouldn't be preferable over a fighter, which is inherently more expensive.

Since you are the one who has taken the sarcastic tone, and aside from your constant attempt to discredit everyone you have cited no sources, why should we accept that anyone besides you is the strawman here?

Because HT hasn't misrepresented your position. He's attacked it a generally logical manner. You, on the other hand, assume that since he espouses factual, physical arguments that disagree with yours, he is being combative, thereby discrediting his arguments on the grounds that they appear illegitimate.

Actually I was discussing missiles, why should anyone accept that I was discussing fighters besides you?

Because it looks like you're discussion fighters.

You are familiar with Electronic Warfare and Cyber warfare correct? Its being waged routinely now as we speak by a variety of nations. Without the need for moles in the system.

For one thing, virii aren't as effective against military hardware as they are against home PCs. Second, the entire argument is premised on the fighters-are-obsolete camp having invincible missiles: we don't, we just know they're better than fighters in killing capital ships.

By the way, you ignored my arguements on how size doesnt a fighter make (Honor Harrington series), and the usefulness of light forces outside of a fleet engagement.

So if you follow you own style and previous history in this thread, I guess we can assume you accept them or can't refute them.

Maybe because size has already been adequately covered and you've yet to bring anything new to the table except trying to create an argument based off a sci-fi series that uses impelor wedges and missile spam.

Not exactly. The munition needs more effort to change the direction its huge velocity, while the fighter moving perpendicularly and slower can change it at ease.

And can subsequentially be blown up by point-defense systems easier than can a missile.

Insignificant? Is destruction of a ship insignificant to you?
A single 1-tonne munition at high velocity will achieve it. And the velocity isn't "cfrac", it's maybe 1/1000c - that's more than enough to blast a ship into non-existence.

Missing argument fallacy. You have yet to support your premise that the munitions from smaller fighters pose a dangerous threat to capships on their own. You also had yet to prove armor, shields, and any other defensive system would be non-existent in preventing this warships destruction.

If you don't like the term "damage", call it "elimination". The realities of space KE attacks are such that a small fighter can incinerate a dozen of large ships if they don't resist. Well, their PD will help somewhat, so a group of fighters has to take on a ship, but still - every attack has considerable chances of ship elimination.

Realities of space KE attacks? What realities? Your arguments are based solely around the super-hard FT concept (which is not the point of this thread mind, since it was much more general than that) and that concept also being correct. The only way this argument works is if we disregard shields, armor, FT point defense systems, maneuverability, and everything else that allows a capship to survive. In other words: if we accept the strawman as viable in either FT scope (soft or hard), then you're right. But then again: we don't.

it isn't very different in MT, in fact: a single fighter can carry enough ordnance to destroy a few battleships (w/o CIWS). The Fritz X missile, 1500-kg WWII weapon which successfully sunk a battleship and almost destroyed a couple more, proves that. Missiles were the reason why no more ships were built with armor, and ones designed with it were scrapped. But the disparity of weapons and protection is even more prominent in space.

Because, as you should know, armor hasn't caught up to missile technology. Up till it does, PD systems need to be developed, and they have. Such as that which protects the T-90 from ATGM and other munitions that feel like paying it a visit. This also disregards (As we've already established) the defensive systems on warships that would make whatever advantages you attain from fighters more or less nill, and also, oddly enough supports the missile > fighter argument. Thanks, I think.

Fallacy of analogy. You cannot compare two unlike things and call them the same. Historical experience with air combat WILL NOT give us any indication as to how things will perform in space. Trying to use WWI, WWII, Korea, or the latest stint in Iraq will not tell you how a space fighter will perform, only inferences from established facts and observations of the environment applied to the fighter concept can. .

True, but without any real world analogies to base it on as there is no space combat experience to use, we have to use what is available in situations that are similar. Science does the same thing.

We have to use what is known in order to have any kind of model to examine what is unknown. As warfare has a long history, we can use that to at least start examining the situation.

No, I don't believe in every Science Fiction setting planets are going to be self sufficient. It depends on how cheap transportation between worlds is.

Space is indeed different from an ocean, but with space travel cheap enough to justify war fleets of any kind, its going to be as useful analogy as is likely to be available in an academic argument.

I suppose we will have to agree to disagree with whether history is impossible to apply to warfare in the future. I suspect my point has more validity then yours, but neither of use can really prove it now can we.

Sensors are certainly going to be extremely capable. But the history of warfare has two major contests.. guns (or the equivilant) versus armor, and stealth versus sensors. At any point, one may have the advantage over the other.

I disputed HT because he failed to address my points in a previous post (that I linked to) and only addressed some of my points in the particular post in question here.

I was discussing missiles and fighters, because both are being discussed in this thread.

Argueably, in some situations, using some models, fighters may be obsolete, but not in all of them. That is my main point, and the point of a number of others here.

I for one don't believe that the size of the fighter was adequately addressed which is why I revisited that, using a popular series which does have a consistant and not outlandish handwavium basis.

You may not like the fighters in the Harrington series, but they do perform essentially the same role as a fighter is supposed to in a fleet engagement.







`

Could you just sort out the list of advantages that big ships have in space over fighters?

Both carry weapons sufficient to eliminate the other. Endurance. They don't need a carrier
Not utilising a second stage to launch ordnance (The fighter), they carry more firepower for their mass
Come to think of it, the fighter still requires a big ship, so you'll have 'em, anyway
Can engage from much farther away, 's far as DEWs are concerned
If shields exist in any given technology frame - well, their defensive value pretty much becomes a function of the volume dedicated to them. A rather significant advantage
Vastly superior sensorium, by virtue of sheer size. See first, kill first (Yes, I know - size means easier detection. But their range & sensory advantages still exist)
Depending on the technological background, may be capable of manufacturing their own ordnance. I've difficulties imagining fighters doing this
Much more difficult to soft-kill, courtesy of redundancy / greater repair-possibilities
Ordnance can generally be of much higher yield than anything a fighter - or 'Bomber' (== Missile Bus) - can carry
Area effect weaponry - high beamspread, sand, absudojoule detonations

'tis would be what comes to mind right now. Now, what does it mean?

They'll always have greater total firepower available, assuming similar mass.
At similar acceleration & greater range, they can always completely annihilate an attacking group of fighters of, well, arbitrary size without taking a hit. This does, admittedly, only apply to ideal scenarios where there are no other objectives than mutual annihilation, but as avoiding one's own destruction is generally imperative to success, it's close enough
If shields are available, damage can be avoided as volume increases
As fighters need to return to their carriers to reload after one shot, while the major combatant just has to reload a tube, the firepower the major combatants can pour out in a given timeframe > the firepower the fighters can project
Once the fighters are out of capship-hurting ordnance, the capships can follow them to their carriers, which either have to run or die. The fighters die, regardless
Area-effect weaponry incapable of hurting capships, but sufficient to annihilate a fighter is, in any case, a problem

Endurance. They don't need a carrier
Not utilising a second stage to launch ordnance (The fighter), they carry more firepower for their mass
Come to think of it, the fighter still requires a big ship, so you'll have 'em, anyway
Can engage from much farther away, 's far as DEWs are concerned
If shields exist in any given technology frame - well, their defensive value pretty much becomes a function of the volume dedicated to them. A rather significant advantage
Vastly superior sensorium, by virtue of sheer size. See first, kill first (Yes, I know - size means easier detection. But their range & sensory advantages still exist)
Depending on the technological background, may be capable of manufacturing their own ordnance. I've difficulties imagining fighters doing this
Much more difficult to soft-kill, courtesy of redundancy / greater repair-possibilities
Ordnance can generally be of much higher yield than anything a fighter - or 'Bomber' (== Missile Bus) - can carry
Area effect weaponry - high beamspread, sand, absudojoule detonations

'tis would be what comes to mind right now. Now, what does it mean?

They'll always have greater total firepower available, assuming similar mass.
At similar acceleration & greater range, they can always completely annihilate an attacking group of fighters of, well, arbitrary size without taking a hit. This does, admittedly, only apply to ideal scenarios where there are no other objectives than mutual annihilation, but as avoiding one's own destruction is generally imperative to success, it's close enough
If shields are available, damage can be avoided as volume increases
As fighters need to return to their carriers to reload after one shot, while the major combatant just has to reload a tube, the firepower the major combatants can pour out in a given timeframe > the firepower the fighters can project
Once the fighters are out of capship-hurting ordnance, the capships can follow them to their carriers, which either have to run or die. The fighters die, regardless
Area-effect weaponry incapable of hurting capships, but sufficient to annihilate a fighter is, in any case, a problem

reasonable summary... when time permits (as I am out of it now) will see what I can do to take on your points in a respectful manner.

Well if you insist on personal attacks against people who don't have your apparantly god like knowledge of exactly how the future is going to shape itself, no need for any of of the rest of the us to refrain.

He's saying stop basing all your arguments on fallacy and ignorance while also sidestepping our own, because guess what: it's not constructive nor appreciated.

The two most inflated egos in this thread appear to be you and one other, who have made by far the most trolllike responses, and used the most sarcasm and rhetoric.

Troll-like? You mean making rational, logical arguments and taking this thread seriously unlike yourself? Yeah, that's troll-like. :rolleyes:

Nobody is sidestepping your points, its simply that a number of posters in this thread fail to see that you have adequately defended your rhetoric with anything beyond your own opinion. Your defense is usually a nasty attack on anyone who disagrees with you.

Stop using the word rhetoric as if this is ancient Greece and we're trying to sway the entire forum to our cause with trickery of the tongue. DA's arguments have more than been adequately defended, as have everyone else's who have bothered trying to point out that fighters != good in FT. Your only attacks and rebuttals are misrepresentations of arguments made against your camp, and I can tell you that they are less appreciated than the occasional snide remark and bout of sarcasm.

Simply put, you haven't convinced those who respond to you that you are right and we are wrong when the parameters of the discussion.

Because mayhaps 99% of those who have responded can
t read as evidenced by the continuous rehashing of points that have already been defeated? Yeah, that's gotta be DA's fault.

Futuretech, fighters and why they are obsolete is so broad as to make you points impossible to prove without very specific technological guidelines based on a very specific scientific framework that may or may not be valid based on future knowledge.

So your arguments have even less validity since they're based on historical analogies (Fallacy) that have no relevance to the topic at hand? Why thank you, now I don't have to point that out anymore.

As its entirely an academic argument, that cannot be proven, our opinions have as much validity as yours.

And generally speaking, those who are arguing on the side I have taken have generally remained at least polite.

No, they don't. An argument's viability depends upon it being logically sound, while also (since this is an a posteriori discussion) being in line with established facts and observation. That's what DA, myself, and others have been using: arguments. Since well, this thread isn't about your opinion, unless the opinion of a five year-old girl is equally valid in discussing something such as this.

Perhaps you could work on your reading comprehension and learn from those people who can take a side without seeing the need to insult the other.

DA can read just fine, as seen with his not continual rehashing of debunked points and his ability to string together logical arguments and use of common sense when debating this topic, instead of giving an unwarranted opinion in a thread not meant for such. 1-800-ABC-DEFG is for you!

I said it before n I'll say it again....

Battle Star Galactica:

Vipers FTW.

End of discussion :upyours: :D

*runs*

Now, that's more serious.
I'll attempt to comment on some points.

Endurance. They don't need a carrier
Not utilising a second stage to launch ordnance (The fighter), they carry more firepower for their mass
Not exactly. Fighters (per se) carry more firepower for their mass. Remember, we're comparing fighter vs. ship.


Vastly superior sensorium, by virtue of sheer size. See first, kill first (Yes, I know - size means easier detection. But their range & sensory advantages still exist)
Sensors and size basically cancel out each other.

Depending on the technological background, may be capable of manufacturing their own ordnance. I've difficulties imagining fighters doing this
FFT, really far. That requires more than it may seem.


Ordnance can generally be of much higher yield than anything a fighter - or 'Bomber' (== Missile Bus) - can carry
Useless. It doesn't matter if you shoot a man with .50 BMG or 120mm tank gun, both are overkill.


Area effect weaponry - high beamspread, sand, absudojoule detonations
Absurdowhat?
Now, while ships have area attack, they are area targets, compared to fighters. Mutual cancellation.
High beamspread is pointless, you waste the energy. Spreading a beam, say, for 1km - a tiny amount for space - means the power density will be a million times lower than for 1m spread.



At similar acceleration & greater range, they can always completely annihilate an attacking group of fighters of, well, arbitrary size without taking a hit.
Why? I don't see how hitting 1000 small targets is easier than hitting 1 large target. In fact, it's way harder. Thousands times harder. Not 1000, thousands, likely 100,000 (considering 2/3 power for surface to volume). While the fighters are all weapons; the ship doesn't even have 1000 times fire power of a fighter, more likely 100 times.


As fighters need to return to their carriers to reload after one shot, while the major combatant just has to reload a tube, the firepower the major combatants can pour out in a given timeframe > the firepower the fighters can project
In other words, rather than having all munitions ready to fire, the big ships store most of them in a hangar, wasting time reloading, while fighters can fire it all at once.
And that's not surprising: there's a lot of volume, but limited surface. Besides, the fighters have way more payload per mass.


Once the fighters are out of capship-hurting ordnance, the capships can follow them to their carriers, which either have to run or die.
...By the time the fighters are out of ammo, the capships are likely out of existence.

It's pretty like saying "Knife is better than machinegun, because once you're out of ammo, I can chase you and kill you."


Area-effect weaponry incapable of hurting capships, but sufficient to annihilate a fighter is, in any case, a problem
Mostly cancels out by lower density of fighters. Yes, you need a bigger projectile to damage a big ship, but the total mass of these projectiles is smaller than needed to damage hundreds of fighters spread all around the space. In other words, you shoot out a ton of sand to hit the small and maneuverable fighter, the fighter shoots out a ton of metal to hit the large ship.


In general, unless shields and other FFT is used... most advantages just cancel out, but the numbers remain.

Let's say it's a 100..200-tonne one and its payload is 10*2700kg, just for simplicity.
3e5^2*2700/2 = 4e13 = 1e7*4e6 = 10,000,000kg of TNT = 10 kilotons. This is greater than Hiroshima, since these 10kt are delivered without losses on radiation. Surviving that takes more than just a big spaceship. Now, ten of these.

And 300km/s isn't that fast, it may be not super-hard FT, but still not FFT for sure.Yes... The word 'Mere' kinda suggested that.

Furthermore, you've not understood what I wrote.

But it has to hit the ship first... With fighters - particularly when launching mere 300 km/s projectiles - I've rather strong doubts about it.Lets analyse this sentence, shall we?

"But it has to hit the ship first." Now, I'm not sure how you interpreted this line - but I believe it means something along the lines of "Assuming that it doesn't miss."

And we can stop right here, as my argument had absolutely nothing at all to do with the kinetic energy the ordnance in question carried, and everything with its chance to actually transfer this energy onto a target.

You are, quite simply, not getting what I actually wrote, and arguing something quite irrelevant to my point.

Now, mind addressing my actual point so we can move on?

Nope. The ship, with even a little bit of realism, can't accelerate as fast as a missile or a fighter.Addressed so many times before, it isn't funny. My ships are 40% engine, tyvm.

And besides, even if it was only half the engine ratio of a fighter, it'd still more than suffice, unless you're located in Real-life centimetres-per-second-squared land.

But, well, even if it's absolute wankfest and the ship accelerates as fast - that's where encirclement comes handy. There's a lot of fighters, they can do it: they only need to have 10-20 around the ship. As the ship starts to run away from one, it runs right into the others' munitions. Smart and with propulsion.I addressed encircling and the hilarious improbability of it before. Funny how you didn't address that part. And unless you do and actually refute the points, well, why should I bother dealing with your wet dreams of what-it-should-be-like-if-I-moved-and-my-enemy-was-sleeping.

And you still seem to think that encircling doesn't involve hundreds of thousands kilometres of empty space. Yeah, right.

<snip>That's rather a lot of text. Hilariously enough, none of it addresses the rather specific points I made.

Well, you're quite adept at saying nothing in rather a lot of words, I'll grant you that.

My ships are 40% engine, tyvm.
And 30% structure, and 20% fuel, and 20% ordnance, and 20% habitable/supply, and 10% sensors, and 20% armor?
That looks like FFT math.

Though ditch the crew - they are dead. The fighter pilot can take way more acceleration than the ship crew if it tries to work.


"But it has to hit the ship first." Now, I'm not sure how you interpreted this line - but I believe it means something along the lines of "Assuming that it doesn't miss."
You questioned the ordnance can destroy the ship, I shown it.
Now, well, the ordnance is faster than the ship anyway. It has fighter speed (higher than ship) plus own speed. Plus it's guided. It all depends on tech, but in any case, let's face it: the ordnance will be faster than the ship.

Furthermore, even if it isn't, that's where flank attack comes handy.

And you still seem to think that encircling doesn't involve hundreds of thousands kilometres of empty space. Yeah, right.
These thousands km of empty space are precisely what makes encirclement possible. Nothing interferes with it. You don't have to achieve full encirclement. But ability to outrun the ship makes it possible.

Not exactly. Fighters (per se) carry more firepower for their mass. Remember, we're comparing fighter vs. ship.I did, of course, mean the total mass of all combatants . including the carriers that sacrifice mass for the fighters.

FFT, really far. That requires more than it may seem.Certainly. Soft SciFi's included here.

Useless. It doesn't matter if you shoot a man with .50 BMG or 120mm tank gun, both are overkill.It does when it comes to things like widebeam fire & area effect ordnance (I.e. aforementioend absurdojoule nukes).

Now, while ships have area attack, they are area targets, compared to fighters. Mutual cancellation.Nope. When a single gun can cover a square kilometre of space with sufficient energy to kill a fighter, and the ship has, lets say, ten guns available, while it itself has a profile accounting for merely half a square kilometre, it does most definitely not cancel each other out.

High beamspread is pointless, you waste the energy. Spreading a beam, say, for 1km - a tiny amount for space - means the power density will be a million times lower than for 1m spread.Yes, I am aware. I am also aware of the positively silly energy densities you usually get in NS SciFi - it works.

Hell, that's actually a pretty low estimate. Plenty of nations that could pull it off over ten square kilometres. Or a hundred.

No, it's certainly not 'Hard' (Not necessarily a hard kill, either). It is, however, there. And the topic says nothing about this only concerning ultra-mega hard SciFi, ne?

Why? I don't see how hitting 1000 small targets is easier than hitting 1 large target. In fact, it's way harder. Thousands times harder. Not 1000, thousands, likely 100,000 (considering 2/3 power for surface to volume). While the fighters are all weapons; the ship doesn't even have 1000 times fire power of a fighter, more likely 100 times.That rather depends on the size of either, ne? Furthermore, whether it's difficult or not doesn't play a role - the fighters never get close enough to score the hit. That's the point.

In other words, rather than having all munitions ready to fire, the big ships store most of them in a hangar, wasting time reloading, while fighters can fire it all at once.Assuming that the ship doesn't distribute munitions beforehand (Which I do). In softish scenarios, you also get displacers and such things.

And that's not surprising: there's a lot of volume, but limited surface.Indeed. Among other things, this means that the analogy 'Bigger - easier to hit!' doesn't quite work out, as the surface area doesn't increase lineary with volume (And thus firepower).

Besides, the fighters have way more payload per mass.'May more' is decidedly less than an order of magnitude difference. Lets not exaggerate, ne?

...By the time the fighters are out of ammo, the capships are likely out of existence.You're still assuming the capships are sitting ducks, rather than, ya'know, moving...

Mostly cancels out by lower density of fighters. Yes, you need a bigger projectile to damage a big ship, but the total mass of these projectiles is smaller than needed to damage hundreds of fighters spread all around the space. In other words, you shoot out a ton of sand to hit the small and maneuverable fighter, the fighter shoots out a ton of metal to hit the large ship.Except that a single projectile has a much lower chance at scoring a hit than the cloud of sand... Particularly when the fighters are moving towards the sand, while the capship is moving away from the single lump of metal.

Since you are approaching this in a point by point debating style I will respond to you that way. For one thing, I was talking about World War I, NOT World War II.

Congratulations. It's still an analogy. I don't really give a damn whether you're talking about the Vietnam War, WW2, WW1, or the conquests of Alexander the Great. Basing your argument around an analogy like that

Without any human experience in the warfare being discussed, all we have to use is historical experience and to try to make some sort of sense out of an extremely vague discussion where we have no idea of the exact technology involved

Ah, right. Like generals in WW1 based their tactics off the Napoleonic Era. Tell me. Do you know how many casualties France suffered during WW1? And how many of those were due to sheer idiocy on the part of its generals?

So unless you have something besides your own opinions to offer, why shouldn't we use historical analogies, as there is no reason to believe you are uniquely qualified to the point that your opinion is automatically acceptable without question.

Actually, I do. I have an entire site which seems quite happy to aid us in this discussion.

http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/index.html




Once again you are assuming all societies and planets are equal, all civilizations and planetary colonies develop at the same time and rate. Why is that a good assumption?

Because to test the usefulness of something, we need to assume equal resources and situations for each side. For instance, take an argument that the Death Star was weaker than a single X-Wing. This is supported by the fact that a single X-Wing blew it up. However, this is entirely circumstantial - if we don't assume equal resources and equal technology, as well as equal circumstances (no-one starting in orbit above the enemy homeworld, for instance), then someone can just say 'well, you may not like fighters, but if a civilization is ten times as big, they'll be able to win with superior capships and fighters.'. By setting the other variables of the argument to be constants, we can more easily find out what we're trying to find out.


You are automatically assuming that all shipping is always convoyed. And that as a norm merchant ships are armed. Since even in the 19th Century, the last time any merchant routinely had weapons in peacetime only a small percentage of those crews actually drilled with those weapons, or carried more then a token amount. In short, a merchant ship is not a capable warship while most pirate crews were at least trained in using their weapons.

Right. Because the 19th century is the same as the 23rd. Or 24th. Or whenever this is taking place. And, in wartime, most shipping IS convoyed.

And why is it impossible to hide at engagement ranges? Because you say so? You are assuming everyone is once again accepting your opinion of what is or isn't possible.

Actually, I was using a little thing called physics, aided by thermodynamics, and various other useful laws and theories.

http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3w.html

Read it. I could repeat the arguments verbatim, but I feel the site does explain it better than I do.

Since you are the one who has taken the sarcastic tone, and aside from your constant attempt to discredit everyone you have cited no sources, why should we accept that anyone besides you is the strawman here?

..what the hell are you talking about? In fact, you're just making you look more like you're using a strawman than ever - saying that I'm using a sarcastic tone does not invalidate my arguments, and my 'constant attempts to discredit everyone' is apparently my rebuttle. Yeah, I guess disproving your arguments does discredit you a bit.

...Oh, and calling someone a strawman doesn't work. It's a form of argument, not a person.


Actually I was discussing missiles, why should anyone accept that I was discussing fighters besides you?
Are Fighters obsolete in FT? (OOC Discussion)




Just because your sarcasm says something is so doesn't mean that it is so.

Excellent. It's not me who's saying it now, it's my sarcasm!

You are familiar with Electronic Warfare and Cyber warfare correct? Its being waged routinely now as we speak by a variety of nations. Without the need for moles in the system.

So, why aren't nuclear missiles being launched from all over the world by these deadly, evil hackers with their Cyberwarfare powers? Oh, that's right. Military networks aren't civilian ones. When you're protecting something important, you'll probably run it entirely on a closed network - or as close as you can get to it.

To use a modern analogy, why aren't we just sinking ships with virus-beams, if cyber-warfare is so advanced? Why didn't we just walk into Korea and use our magical viruses to shut down all of their tanks and ships and planes, and laugh as we reunited the peninsula?

Out of curiosity, since you're basing your argument off WW1-era tactics and technology, why are you even bothering to include viruses in your strategies? Where does this fit into your analogy?

Now, it may be relatively easy to overwhelm a Home PC, connected to the internet, with a firewall, decent anti-virus, and whatnot, for these mysterious cyber soldiers, but I've yet to see the US's ships, planes, and missiles taken over as a result of their efforts.

The only difference in space warfare will be that you'll communicate on a specific radio band. If you don't know the frequency they're transmitting at, you can't do shit. And it's quite reasonable to assume that frequencies are changed on a regular basis to prevent the enemy from getting into your communications, in any case.

Incidently, the purpose of war is not generally extermination (with notable exceptions) but to enforce your will on them. If its more cost effective to take over their systems or sow confusion to the point of an enemy collapse, then destruction isn't required.

Which is why, when a fleet of capital ships annihilates a fleet of smaller ships aided by fighters, they can quite easily enforce their will on the nigh-defenseless planets sitting around.

By the way, you ignored my arguements on how size doesnt a fighter make (Honor Harrington series)

Because in this situation, size is accepted as making the fighter. When your ship is a few million times smaller than the average capships, it's a fighter.

and the usefulness of light forces outside of a fleet engagement.

The usefulness of light forces outside of a fleet engagement depends entirely on the circumstances in which they are used. Since you're so keen on historical examples, I might use one. Of course, I'll be using it to map out my argument, rather than using it as all that supports it.

Cavalry can still be useful, not only in warfare. In fact, there are still situations in warfare where riding a horse en masse could be useful. For instance, if you're run out of gasoline for all of your tanks. However, despite the occasional circumstance in which they are useful, we still consider cavalry to be obsolete in warfare. Just because something can have a minor effect in one situation doesn't mean it's worthwhile using it as a major part of your army.

So if you follow you own style and previous history in this thread, I guess we can assume you accept them or can't refute them.

Awwww... isn't that sweet. Another excellent strawman. You're coming up with them by the dozen, now. No, by all means, keep them coming. They certainly don't hurt my argument.

And 30% structure, and 20% fuel, and 20% ordnance, and 20% habitable/supply, and 10% sensors, and 20% armor?
That looks like FFT math.40% engine, 10% armour, 40% armament, 10% everything else. Well, that's volume. By mass it's a bit different.

Though ditch the crew - they are dead. The fighter pilot can take way more acceleration than the ship crew if it tries to work.I think we dealt with this point before?

Besides, when the crew consists of distributed optic computronium & the conciousness uploaded into it, I'm not overly bothered.

You questioned the ordnance can destroy the ship, I shown it.No, I didn't... You just failed at properly interpreting what I wrote in, quite frankly, entirely plain text.

Now, well, the ordnance is faster than the ship anyway. It has fighter speed (higher than ship) plus own speed.And why is the fighter faster? The target has its own initial velocity (May be higher) plus the velocity it gains via acceleration (May be equal)...

It's funny to see you assuming ideal scenarios. This doesn't make them overly feasible.

Plus it's guided.So is a missile.

the ordnance will be faster than the ship.Missiles, yes, if they're launched at a target with a low initial velocity. Fighters have a bit more trouble.

Which brings us back to the original point...

Furthermore, even if it isn't, that's where flank attack comes handy.Well, it's mildly less daft than trying to encircle a target, I suppose...

These thousands km of empty space are precisely what makes encirclement possible. Nothing interferes with it. You don't have to achieve full encirclement. But ability to outrun the ship makes it possible.*Fighters outrun*

*Fighters turn around*

*Ten seconds later, ship's a lightsecond away again*

lol.

40% engine, 10% armour, 40% armament, 10% everything else. Well, that's volume. By mass it's a bit different.
Well, I'd say that means everything else is in awful condition, if I didn't try to stay politically correct. I'll try and say it then has about 1% each on fuel, sensors, crew, supplies, safety, and the rest of the systems. Basically it means it's just an oversized fighter, with little or no advantage in anything but size, which isn't an advantage anyway.




It does when it comes to things like widebeam fire & area effect ordnance (I.e. aforementioend absurdojoule nukes).
And disappears again when you consider the smart munitions.

the fighters never get close enough to score the hit.
Could you elaborate on why would they suddenly need to get closer than the ship needs?


When a single gun can cover a square kilometre of space with sufficient energy to kill a fighter, and the ship has, lets say, ten guns available, while it itself has a profile accounting for merely half a square kilometre, it does most definitely not cancel each other out.
The problem is that both the ship can hit the fighter's one-second probable area and the fighter can hit the ship's one-second probable area. Both will heavily damage or destroy each other with a single hit. The ship has ten area effect guns, the fighter has ten projectiles. They aren't area effect - they don't need, as the ship provides the area to hit.


No, it's certainly not 'Hard' (Not necessarily a hard kill, either). It is, however, there. And the topic says nothing about this only concerning ultra-mega hard SciFi, ne?
But Sci-Fi, not high fantasy or fairy tale. Math exists in sci-fi.

Let's assume the ship is 10,000 times heavier than each of the attacking 1000 fighters. More than fair for the ship. It will also be 22 times thicker/wider.

If a ship can spread such power over 100 km^2, then the fighter, which is, 10000 times lighter, can spread it over 10,000 m^2. Or it can spread 25 times greater power over 400 m^2, which means it will pierce the ship, relatively, as deep. That means it will make over 20m wide hole in the ship. Fancy, isn't it? Now 100 fighters makes such a hole, each. This isn't really a ship any more, it's some huge sieve.
In the meantime, the ship cleared out 100 km^2, which probably contained a single fighter.

In the meantime, the rest 900 fighters were busy with other ships.


You're still assuming the capships are sitting ducks, rather than, ya'know, moving...
The ordnance isn't dumb, and it corrects the course. The missile can change the course orders of magnitude (between two and five) faster than a ship.


Except that a single projectile has a much lower chance at scoring a hit than the cloud of sand... Particularly when the fighters are moving towards the sand, while the capship is moving away from the single lump of metal.
You see, each fighter only has to evade one cloud of sand, which is actually more like birdshot than sand, as the fighter also has Whipple shields. The ship has to evade hundreds of metal pieces thrown at it from all directions.
Finally, the failure of one fighter to evade doesn't doom the attack; but if the ship fails to evade just one guided missile, it's out.


*Fighters outrun*
*Fighters turn around*
*Ten seconds later, ship's a lightsecond away again*
The fighters can pass 1.5 lightseconds in the meantime.


P.S. Just in case: IMO missiles>fighters>capships.

Drone fighters can be useful for point defense against enemy ordinance, and that's about it.

Well, I'd say that means everything else is in awful condition, if I didn't try to stay politically correct. I'll try and say it then has about 1% each on fuel, sensors, crew, supplies, safety, and the rest of the systems. Basically it means it's just an oversized fighter, with little or no advantage in anything but size, which isn't an advantage anyway.You are of course assuming that fuel's not included in engines (It is), that sensors aren't embedded in weaponry & 'Other' (They are), that you've indeed missed my point on crew (What crew?), that it actually needs suppplies for a crew that doesn't exist & weaponry/ spare parts it can produce itself (It doesn't) and so on and so forth...

And before you raise the point (Again...), no, it most certainly isn't hard SciFi.

And before you raise the other point, no, just because it's soft-ish doesn't mean it ignores everything - amazingly, there's limits to energy densities, the ranges of its weaponry are actually 'Real', it doesn't grossly violate conservation of energy, conservation of momentum or entrophy...

And disappears again when you consider the smart munitions.
Which still suffer from an awfully slow version of catch up?

Could you elaborate on why would they suddenly need to get closer than the ship needs?The ship's (Vastly) superior range in terms of particle beams & coherent EM? The ship can easily - in 'Hard' scenarios, no less - start shooting them at a hundred lightseconds out. Certainly, no great hit probability there, but still. From about ten lightseconds out on, things look mightily different - and to cross that distance, you still need veritable ages (If the target's flying away from you) or it happens so fast you press the trigger a considerable while after the target flew past you (If it's flying into you).

The problem is that both the ship can hit the fighter's one-second probable area and the fighter can hit the ship's one-second probable area. Both will heavily damage or destroy each other with a single hit. The ship has ten area effect guns, the fighter has ten projectiles. They aren't area effect - they don't need, as the ship provides the area to hit.The projectile - and fighter - still need to cross the volume of space the ship can effectively utilise countermeasures in. When the ship's running away (Likely), it'll take considerable time to cross this volume. The ship's ordnance needs less time for it, ging absurdly close to c, and having the targets come closer, anyway.

The ship can see the incoming ordnance coming, can engage it, and take evasive action.

The fighters, well, can't see it coming, can't engage it, and can only take evasive action in the form of randomised maneuvering.

That's a number of rather considerable disadvantages right there.

But Sci-Fi, not high fantasy or fairy tale. Math exists in sci-fi.

Let's assume the ship is 10,000 times heavier than each of the attacking 1000 fighters. More than fair for the ship. It will also be 22 times thicker/wider.

If a ship can spread such power over 100 km^2, then the fighter, which is, 10000 times lighter, can spread it over 10,000 m^2. Or it can spread 25 times greater power over 400 m^2, which means it will pierce the ship, relatively, as deep. That means it will make over 20m wide hole in the ship. Fancy, isn't it? Now 100 fighters makes such a hole, each. This isn't really a ship any more, it's some huge sieve.
In the meantime, the ship cleared out 100 km^2, which probably contained a single fighter.

In the meantime, the rest 900 fighters were busy with other ships.Kinda hilarious, how all your fighters hit with 100% probability, and how they all are in range, how all their ordnance hits nigh-instantaneously, how the target does nonetheless not have the ability to take aimed shots despite firing beams at c, how none were lost when crossing the distance over which the ship could fire but they could not, how nothing is done to hurt their carriers (Which I figure would bother them a little), how they are all instantaneously deployed upon arrival, giving the target(s) zero reaction time, how there are no predeployed defences, how there is no EW, how they can catch up to their target in no time at all, whether it's moving at them, reducing trigger-time to fractions of a second, or away for them, increasing time on target to half an hour...

The ordnance isn't dumb, and it corrects the course. The missile can change the course orders of magnitude (between two and five) faster than a ship.Welcome to the land of fairy tales?

For that matter, if your ordnance corrects its course, we're back to 'Why bother with the fighter'. A question you've, incidentally, never answered. Well, you did now, at the end of your post... That's better than nothing, I suppose.

You see, each fighter only has to evade one cloud of sand, which is actually more like birdshot than sand, as the fighter also has Whipple shields. The ship has to evade hundreds of metal pieces thrown at it from all directions.In your ideal 'Sitting Duck' scenario, where all fighters magically survive, magically get into range, magically have enough fuel (Maybe even reaction mass) left to return after finally reaching their target, and which is still leaving thousands of kilometers of space completely untouched.

Hell, even in magical fairy makes your fighters succeed land, I wouldn't be overly bothered. As it is, I just giggle helplessly.

The ship's (Vastly) superior range in terms of particle beams & coherent EM? The ship can easily - in 'Hard' scenarios, no less - start shooting them at a hundred lightseconds out.
As well as other ships.


The ship can see the incoming ordnance coming, can engage it, and take evasive action.
The fighters, well, can't see it coming, can't engage it
They see it as well and engage even better, as they know the trajectory better (they are smaller targets).


Kinda hilarious, how all your fighters hit with 100% probability, and how they all are in range, how all their ordnance hits nigh-instantaneously, how the target does nonetheless not have the ability to take aimed shots despite firing beams at c,
Not all, of course. But the ship doesn't need hundreds of tower-sized holes to become incapable either.

Remember, whatever you point for ships applies to the fighters. Ship's EW masks it? Now think how well fighters mask themselves.


For that matter, if your ordnance corrects its course, we're back to 'Why bother with the fighter'. A question you've, incidentally, never answered.
I did. Missiles>fighters>capships.
Missiles are one extreme: zero reusability, zero flexibility, extremely deadly, near-indestructible due to numbers.
Gun/beam ships are another: full reusability and long life, flexibility, limited firepower, extreme vulnerability (a couple missiles and the ship is out).
Fighters are somewhere in between.

Ah, right. Like generals in WW1 based their tactics off the Napoleonic Era. Tell me. Do you know how many casualties France suffered during WW1? And how many of those were due to sheer idiocy on the part of its generals?



Actually, I do. I have an entire site which seems quite happy to aid us in this discussion.

http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/index.html


.


I have had that site bookmarked for about three years now, along with Tough Mans guide to Science Fiction and a number of others

France suffered about as many casualties as the Germans and British did in that war, and most historians no longer blame the generals so much as the technological limitations of the day.

I am impressed by the amazing talent you and your two partners have for attacking any arguement regardless of merit using sarcasm and ridicule. Truly an excellent way to be persuasive.

Clearly any one who disagrees with you is an idiot in your world view.

Too bad you won't ever be right except by accident.

Enough of this. Bottom line, in the RPs you guys play in fighters aren't allowed. Point made. So what. A large number of science fiction writers, including a lot of the present generation disagree with you, and at least they have had their science placed under scrutiny. Some are in dreamland but some are plausable.

As Future Tech IS Science Fiction, I think I will go with them instead of three people who merely think they are right.

I am impressed by the amazing talent you and your two partners have for attacking any arguement regardless of merit using sarcasm and ridicule. Truly an excellent way to be persuasive.

More persuasive than basing all your arguments on logical fallacy and making sure to be totally devoid of common sense at the same time.

Clearly any one who disagrees with you is an idiot in your world view.

Too bad you won't ever be right except by accident.

I think we've been proven right enough, at least in that no one has even made a dent in the arguments made against the viability of fighters in FT.

Enough of this. Bottom line, in the RPs you guys play in fighters aren't allowed. Point made. So what. A large number of science fiction writers, including a lot of the present generation disagree with you, and at least they have had their science placed under scrutiny. Some are in dreamland but some are plausable.

Way to go, you've completely ignored the premise of this post, like AB, Azaha, and Angerman before you. This is not about preference, or opinion: this is a debate about the usefulness of fighters in an NS FT environment. This is not a place where you can try and get on some sort of high-horse and bely us as assholes for not agreeing with you.

As Future Tech IS Science Fiction, I think I will go with them instead of three people who merely think they are right.

Then go ahead, and don't post here anymore if you can remain true to the point of this thread: we'd really be better off.

They see it as well and engage even better, as they know the trajectory better (they are smaller targets).

Uh? No? Capships have more powerful defensive computers than do smaller fighters. Wanna no why? Because capships are bigger. In terms of raw defensive power, Capship>Fighter.

Not all, of course. But the ship doesn't need hundreds of tower-sized holes to become incapable either.

And how does a fighter accomplish this better than a missile given that your scenario of a capship not doing anything to defend itself is just a fallacy in its own right?

Remember, whatever you point for ships applies to the fighters. Ship's EW masks it? Now think how well fighters mask themselves.

You mean how well fighters can't mask themselves? Sorry, but as already explained, a fighter in NS FT is not the transparent entity it is in MT. Also seems to disregard the fact that missiles can be made more stealthy than fighters in the first place.

I did. Missiles>fighters>capships.
Missiles are one extreme: zero reusability, zero flexibility, extremely deadly, near-indestructible due to numbers.

No flexibility? They blow shit up, that's as flexible as they need to be.

Gun/beam ships are another: full reusability and long life, flexibility, limited firepower, extreme vulnerability (a couple missiles and the ship is out).

... limited firepower, right. Given the vastly superior volume of reactor space and weapons space over a fighter, that's just a silly thing to say. Vulnerability? You mean IF we accept your defenseless capship argument? Course you do, because that statement is absurd unless we do.

Fighters are somewhere in between.

Between worthless and insane when trying to stick them into the role your describe? Yes, of course.

I have had that site bookmarked for about three years now, along with Tough Mans guide to Science Fiction and a number of others

So? I've owned Sun Tzu's The Art of War for about five years. Does this somehow invalidate any argument someone makes against me that uses his works?

France suffered about as many casualties as the Germans and British did in that war, and most historians no longer blame the generals so much as the technological limitations of the day.

A few examples of these historians? I'd like to think that France's practice of not letting their soldiers be swopped out from the front lines before Petain brought it in wasn't an example of technical limitations - it was an example of poor thinking. A lot of what the British and French did early on was a suicidal attempt to take superior-defended trenches and forts.

Incidentally, the Germans suffered more casualties than either the French or the British did. This was probably because they were fighting against the British, the French, and the Russians.

I am impressed by the amazing talent you and your two partners have for attacking any arguement regardless of merit using sarcasm and ridicule. Truly an excellent way to be persuasive.

I am impressed by your amazing talent to create strawman after strawman. You should work in the farming business.

Clearly any one who disagrees with you is an idiot in your world view.

Nope, those people who present themselves to be idiots are idiots in my worldview. I have nothing against people who argue with me.

Too bad you won't ever be right except by accident.

Awww.. you're mad, and you have no arguments left. I understand. Leave gracefully, then. I won't mind.

Enough of this. Bottom line, in the RPs you guys play in fighters aren't allowed.

No, not really. Consider this. I, for the most part, consider myself to be conservative. However, I don't disallow people who consider themselves to be left-wing to associate with me. However, should someone open up a debate, I'll gladly enter and argue like crazy against such people, no matter how I consider them outside of the debate. I don't overly mind fighters; I tend to treat them as effective as their mass would imply, not very, but I certainly don't disregard them entirely.

Point made. So what. A large number of science fiction writers, including a lot of the present generation disagree with you, and at least they have had their science placed under scrutiny. Some are in dreamland but some are plausable.

So? SF writers aren't the ultimate authority. I enjoy many books which have fighters in them. Indeed, I like the entire concept of dogfighting. Star Wars captured my imagination because of the personal level fighter combat was fought on, and I enjoyed it immensely.

However, I'm also a massive fan of glorious cavalry charges. This doesn't mean I recognize everything I like as viable and useful in combat.

As Future Tech IS Science Fiction, I think I will go with them instead of three people who merely think they are right.

Aw, man. Appeals to general authority, strawmen... where does the fun end?

Careful, HT, or that sneer will make your monocle fall out.

...I've always wanted a monocle.

As well as other ships.... Your point? Last I checked, not risking your ships == good. Now you're risking them, anyway...?

They see it as well and engage even better, as they know the trajectory better (they are smaller targets).They 'See' fire incoming at c, and can dodge it?

You've a very interesting definition of 'Hard' SciFi, I must say.

Also, considering the sheer vastness of the space any given engagement happens in, I'm sorry to tell you, but the ship's increased size - over that of the fighters - is mildly insignificant.

you know, i like you. not only are your points well thought out, politely stated, and make sense.. but as an added bonus they express a lot of my own original thoughts far more clearly than i could myself.

[oddly, i apply similar logic in reverse to explain why a fleet should not give up battleships, but rather use both battleships And carriers, in MT. i get about the same attitude in responce you got here :S]

i had many many paragraphs at this point, but upon re-reading them i discovered every one to fall under either "irrelevant" or the "if you can't say something nice, say nothing", so I'll stop now.

To be completely honest though, I just like Carriers and Space Fighters/Bombers/Etc cause of the style...Though, the points are really basic and I don't quite get why I'm being trolled myself.

Probably cause this thread is filled with self indulgent know it alls that don't realize that in a game such as Nationstates Science and Hard Math don't really matter nearly as much as HOW FREAKIN' COOL something might be.

Because mayhaps 99% of those who have responded can
t read as evidenced by the continuous rehashing of points that have already been defeated? Yeah, that's gotta be DA's fault.

Dude, implying that 99% of the people here cannot read is trolling.

Capships have more powerful defensive computers than do smaller fighters. Wanna no why?
The processors on the most advanced modern fighter, F-22, are about 80386 in power (each - there's a block of them). And there's a 25% reserve. They don't replace them with modern ones, even though they can.
Wanna no why?

Once you have a certain speed, you don't need any more.

In FT, the main computer of a capship will probably fit in a cell phone. Unless they're building a neural network type AI there.


No flexibility? They blow shit up, that's as flexible as they need to be. Yes, that's all they can do. That's why no flexibility.

Given the vastly superior volume of reactor space and weapons space over a fighter, that's just a silly thing to say. Unfortunately, firepower per mass is always in this order - missile, fighter, ship. Because fighters don't have anything else aboard.

BTW, in the real life a single strike of a Nimitz air wing delivers more explosives and more damage to the target than all the magazines of Iowa. Something superseded only by guided missile armed ships.


... Your point?
You misread it. It was so:
(you) - "The ship can easily - in 'Hard' scenarios, no less - start shooting them at a hundred lightseconds out."
(me) - As well as other ships.
Here it says that if the ship can easily start shooting at fighters a hundred lightseconds away, it can start shooting other ships at the same range as well.
You probably don't take into account what 100 lightseconds is, but anyway.

They 'See' fire incoming at c, and can dodge it?
You've a very interesting definition of 'Hard' SciFi, I must say.
If "fire incoming at c" is the definition of Hard Sci-Fi, then I wonder at how many c will it go in soft.

But that isn't the point. Ships can't see it as well, then.



Vulnerability? You mean IF we accept your defenseless capship argument?
You don't understand.

ONE projectile not intercepted and you're debris.

That's how it works.
Both for fighters and for capships.

You want to tell your defenses are 100.00% impenetrable?


If they aren't, then let's suppose the ship has 99% of evading/intercepting fighter's attacks, the fighter has 50% chance of evading/intercepting ship's attacks. Don't forget the ship has to spread fire between all of them. Fair enough?

50% fighters will be hit, while only 1% of the fighters will hit the ship.

Now, guess yourself what does it mean with, say, 400 fighters?

That is the point.
Or are your defenses 100% impenetrable?

The processors on the most advanced modern fighter, F-22, are about 80386 in power (each - there's a block of them). And there's a 25% reserve. They don't replace them with modern ones, even though they can.
Wanna no why?

Once you have a certain speed, you don't need any more.

In FT, the main computer of a capship will probably fit in a cell phone. Unless they're building a neural network type AI there.

... And? This will apply to space /how/? Given that targeting computers will need to be able to calculate a hellish number of things over a VERY large distance, and given the amount of damage most capship ordnance can cause, and how much capships will need to rely on PD (oh look, the MT and FT combat environment is different! Who woulda thought?), it becomes painfully obvious that capships would have have better targeting and defensive computers than would fighters (allowing the use of sexified anti-fighter missiles that would own the hell out of your encirclement wet-dream). How do you manage to not get this?


Yes, that's all they can do. That's why no flexibility.

That's like saying a wrestler isn't flexible because he can't juggle flaming chainsaws at the local circus.

Unfortunately, firepower per mass is always in this order - missile, fighter, ship. Because fighters don't have anything else aboard.

In terms of raw numbers, sure, but then again being stupidly anal about per-mass doesn't somehow make fighters teh ubar. Especially since oh, guess what, fighters by and large can't hurt capships, and capships can blow up a whole cloud of fighters.

BTW, in the real life a single strike of a Nimitz air wing delivers more explosives and more damage to the target than all the magazines of Iowa. Something superseded only by guided missile armed ships.

... And? You mean the shells that were designed and produced decades ago in contrast with modern air-craft munitions that are more highly advanced? Sure. Course, if we weren't going to use a fallacy of analogy, we'd notice that the entire magazine of a single Iowa is more powerful than all the munitions of an airwing from a air-craft carrier of the WWII-era. This of course, cannot really be applied to the equivatech FT situation where the type of ammo used is entirely different than in MT.

Namely reactors powering particle cannons, railguns, and lasers. Reactors that are probably bigger on the average capship than an entire wing of your much loved fighters. How do you get around this, I wonder?

You don't understand.

ONE projectile not intercepted and you're debris.

That's how it works.
Both for fighters and for capships.

You want to tell your defenses are 100.00% impenetrable?

Fallacy of missing argument, as already described, as well as a strawman since this one magical missile/KKV only works in a scenario where the capship is defenseless and we accept your view as to what the realities of armor/shields/PD are in space. Denied.

If they aren't, then let's suppose the ship has 99% of evading/intercepting fighter's attacks, the fighter has 50% chance of evading/intercepting ship's attacks. Don't forget the ship has to spread fire between all of them. Fair enough?

Which a capship can easily do due to not wasting space on hanger bays for fighters.

50% fighters will be hit, while only 1% of the fighters will hit the ship.

Now, guess yourself what does it mean with, say, 400 fighters?

That is the point.
Or are your defenses 100% impenetrable?

False dilemma. The scenario is either his defenses are 100% impenetrable and he is discredited for being a wanker, or they aren't 100% impenetrable and his ships always die and you still win. The question also disregards answers that don't rely on strawmen, missing argument fallacies, and failures in reading comprehension so that it can make a point. Good going there.

I don't see point in arguing. You ignore my points and instead say smth. related to the filler. I'll have to work bullet-point style.


Given that targeting computers will need to be able to calculate a hellish number of things over a VERY large distance,
Name a few out of that "hellish number".
As a matter of fact, modern computers can do it, and so any FT cell phone can. They won't have tube computers there, you know.
And, of course, a fighter has proportionally less calculations to do.


and we accept your view as to what the realities of armor/shields/PD are in space.
You're missing the difference between views/opinions and laws of physics.
"Missiles>fighters>capships" is my opinion.

Physics of hypervelocity collisions are laws. Hard facts. Armor doesn't work with hypervelocity. With low-hypervelocity, there are ERA and the like, with high-hypervelocity they become useless as well. Only Whipple shields, which are effective only against small projectiles like sand particles, not against large metal chunks.
Kinetic energy equation is a law.
Energy conservation is a law.

For shields, yes, I disregard them, limiting to hard FT, because shield is an inherent wank-type: you can say it stops it, and it will, whatever it is. It's a kind of saying "ignore" to the energy conservation law. I accept they exist in FFT, but in FFT we don't even need to discuss, there are no physics and math in FFT, they are replaced.
Shields are space opera, with lightsabers, jedi and all the rest.


But, in hard FT, when you ignore the equations and facts I post, you ignore laws of physics.

It's cool to talk about "cfrac projectiles" while at the same time ignoring both the amount of energy required to get them to these velocities and the fact that even a small birdshot-sized one will reduce an entire ship to debris, despite all its armor and size. And the implication is that both a small fighter and a big ship would carry thousands times the amount of firepower sufficient to destroy each other.


I'm surprised how can one be unable to understand this while living in the nuclear age. Space is like nuclear age, but with nukes smaller, all the restrictions lifted, and no non-nuclear weapons left. For MT analogy, it's like if you can build armed cars, tankettes, LT, MBT, HT, SHT, UHBT, YHBT, but each is armed with nuclear weapons, so gun size doesn't matter. In space, it's the same, only with weapons even more destructive and compact.
In PMT, even the most adamant and stubborn SD fans admit that with nukes they are out. Now, in space, you might not even have nukes because they are too weak compared to projectiles.


fighters by and large can't hurt capships
False.
One relatively small KE munition at 1000km/s equals a nuclear bomb.
A fighterload of them equals an entire nuclear bombardment.

Fighters can launch them at ease.

What the hell of hard sci-fi ships are these, which can survive a lot of nuclear bombs? Remember: we are talking about science fiction, not space opera.

I don't see point in arguing. You ignore my points and instead say smth. related to the filler. I'll have to work bullet-point style.

It's called debunking fallacy. If you have a problem with it then don't bother debating.

Name a few out of that "hellish number".
As a matter of fact, modern computers can do it, and so any FT cell phone can. They won't have tube computers there, you know.
And, of course, a fighter has proportionally less calculations to do.[quote]

The entire 3D plane of an area that measures 1000ls in circumference? You know, since it's space, and not the limited confines of the ocean. Of course, bigger could mean the size of my apartment room or the size of a RL computer chip: irrelevant in that a warships computer systems WILL be more powerful and capable than those on a fighter, which is the point you continue to sidestep in your attempts to appear knowledgeable.

[quote]You're missing the difference between views/opinions and laws of physics.
"Missiles>fighters>capships" is my opinion.

And why should you state your opinion in a thread not concerned with such?

Physics of hypervelocity collisions are laws. Hard facts. Armor doesn't work with hypervelocity. With low-hypervelocity, there are ERA and the like, with high-hypervelocity they become useless as well. Only Whipple shields, which are effective only against small projectiles like sand particles, not against large metal chunks.

Er? Yes it does? Certainly HVI are more dangerous than more conventional velocities, but that does not mean Armor != irrelevant. It means you need more armour/mass in order to counteract the affects of inertial stress and the liquifying effect that being hit by such a projectile has on an object. It's one of the primary reasons why the Earth still exists despite numerous hits by HV asteroids and meteorites: the Earth's massmeans the best one of those projectiles can do is create a pretty little crater. A 10mio ton warship certainly has the armor density to be save from a simple fighter-launched kinetic kill vehicle.

Kinetic energy equation is a law.
Energy conservation is a law.

No one is arguing that they're not, I'm arguing that you're misusing them, and thereby making poor Mr. Hawking cry.

For shields, yes, I disregard them, limiting to hard FT, because shield is an inherent wank-type: you can say it stops it, and it will, whatever it is. It's a kind of saying "ignore" to the energy conservation law. I accept they exist in FFT, but in FFT we don't even need to discuss, there are no physics and math in FFT, they are replaced.

Despite the fact that planets and such have shields of their own, and that not knowing how to make shields work not does not equal inherently wanky, you fail to defend your premise entirely. Hard FT makes the velocities you describe impossible in such a short time period if these fighters are to utilize their advantages (hint, instantly hitting .05c is beyond Hard FT capabilities).

Also your inherent misunderstanding of NS FT in general annoys me. Stop it. People have more freedom to work with wank in NS FT, but that hasn't stopped people from obeying physical laws and mathematical numbers. If you really think that then you've lost all credibility to argue.

But, in hard FT, when you ignore the equations and facts I post, you ignore laws of physics.

No, I ignore a non-physicists interpretation of the effects those laws have since they're inherently wrong. Get off the high horse.

It's cool to talk about "cfrac projectiles" while at the same time ignoring both the amount of energy required to get them to these velocities and the fact that even a small birdshot-sized one will reduce an entire ship to debris, despite all its armor and size. And the implication is that both a small fighter and a big ship would carry thousands times the amount of firepower sufficient to destroy each other.

See? Ignoring mass and the various composition of futuristic armors that may make HVI less dangerous than they are now (which are only dangerous because a shuttle massing 5mio tons with 3m thick armor is a shuttle that will never move).

You. Also. Keep. Ignoring. Defensive. Systems. A cruiser that doesn't carry fighters has more space for anti-missile/fighter munitions, such as missiles, that are infinitely more agile and have much more speed and range than your fighters do any day. So despite all the vaunted advantages of such, they die, and the capship can go home slightly (but negligibly) lighter than before.


I'm surprised how can one be unable to understand this while living in the nuclear age. Space is like nuclear age, but with nukes smaller, all the restrictions lifted, and no non-nuclear weapons left. For MT analogy, it's like if you can build armed cars, tankettes, LT, MBT, HT, SHT, UHBT, YHBT, but each is armed with nuclear weapons, so gun size doesn't matter. In space, it's the same, only with weapons even more destructive and compact.
In PMT, even the most adamant and stubborn SD fans admit that with nukes they are out. Now, in space, you might not even have nukes because they are too weak compared to projectiles.

No, it's not the same. Because of the little fallacy of analogy and missing argument fallacies you keep using, which basically build arguments that A) have unsupported premises and B) not only misrepresent the actual facts but are unable to be connected to history as you keep trying to do in the first place.



False.
One relatively small KE munition at 1000km/s equals a nuclear bomb.
A fighterload of them equals an entire nuclear bombardment.

Denied. Assumes I think that a 10mio ton capship with advanced and dense armors + defensive systems (oh look, and the ability to move) can be hurt by a 10kt nuclear bomb.

Fighters can launch them at ease.

And a lancer can carry anti-tank grenades on his lance, (here I am going to accept the implications of fighter ordnance for just a moment to prove to you how silly fighters still are), but do we use lancers or anti-tank grenades? Since you think yourself and expert, I have a feeling you'll choose the later and not the former.

What the hell of hard sci-fi ships are these, which can survive a lot of nuclear bombs? Remember: we are talking about science fiction, not space opera.

Science fiction and space opera fall under the same blanket. The difference is that you take the word "science" and interpret it (or you try to, and also fail) with an entirely literal context that limits fiction to a technology base that doesn't extend beyond the next decade. Also I fail to see how your arguments are even hard FT, since well... the technology you talk about when defending fighters, isn't.

irrelevant in that a warships computer systems WILL be more powerful and capable than those on a fighter
Yes, they will. The question is whether this gives any advantage.


And why should you state your opinion in a thread not concerned with such? Stop pulling phrases out of context, please.


Certainly HVI are more dangerous than more conventional velocities, but that does not mean Armor != irrelevant. It means you need more armour/mass in order to counteract the affects of inertial stress and the liquifying effect that being hit by such a projectile has on an object.
You need *way* more armor. More than it's sensible to build on a ship.

A 10mio ton warship certainly has the armor density to be save from a simple fighter-launched kinetic kill vehicle.
I'm glad we're finally getting to numbers.
10 million ton ship is a toy for "cfrac projectiles" you like so much. 1-kg projectile at 0.33c has energy exceeding (1e8)^2/2 = 5e15J. That's over 5e15/5e6 = 1e9kg = 1,000,000 tons of TNT. A megaton is more than enough to destroy a 10-million-ton ship. It's contained in just 1kg at well below c.


hint, instantly hitting .05c is beyond Hard FT capabilities
Well, it's not me who started with "cfrac". I only assumed 300km/s, 0.001c, in my previous calculations. 300km/s is 10 times over RL capabilities and beyond MT, but seems within high-PMT and hard-FT.


Ignoring mass and the various composition of futuristic armors
Only mass works. Everything acts like a non-viscous fluid during the hypervelocity impact. Solid, liquid, dense gas - no matter. Just splash, regardless of whether it is salt water or diamond.


And a lancer can carry anti-tank grenades on his lance, (here I am going to accept the implications of fighter ordnance for just a moment to prove to you how silly fighters still are), but do we use lancers or anti-tank grenades?
When we have the choice, we make rocket-powered lances.

What differentiates space from Earth is lack of drag and strong gravity. On Earth, the fighter can only fly a certain distance. In space, practically any distance which matters in combat.


entirely literal context that limits fiction to a technology base that doesn't extend beyond the next decade.
Technology? No, it's not about technology.
"Science deals with humans' understanding of the real world. Engineering is the application of science to the creation of designs and means for achieving desired objectives. Technology deals with the tools and techniques for carrying out the plans."

So, technology is the means to create something you already know about. Implement the draft. But there's no scientific knowledge of a way to resist heavy hypervelocity impact. Technology is useless, it takes changing fundamental science.

Well, there is a way, actually. It's extended compartmentalization: separating the compartments by considerable distance of space, so that if one is hit, others survive. It also takes redundancy, so that loss of a few parts leaves the system functional.

Yes, they will. The question is whether this gives any advantage.

Um, yes? Did you just ask that question?


Stop pulling phrases out of context, please.

Context: Thread is not about personal opinion. That;s enough right there.

You need *way* more armor. More than it's sensible to build on a ship.

Says... you, maybe?

I'm glad we're finally getting to numbers.
10 million ton ship is a toy for "cfrac projectiles" you like so much. 1-kg projectile at 0.33c has energy exceeding (1e8)^2/2 = 5e15J. That's over 5e15/5e6 = 1e9kg = 1,000,000 tons of TNT. A megaton is more than enough to destroy a 10-million-ton ship. It's contained in just 1kg at well below c.

Too bad your word is not law. The Japanese BB Nagato masses under 43ktons, it survived two atomic blasts with yields surpassing both Hiroshima and Nagasaki (It sank five days after the second test, but still). It is thusly not in the realm of impossibility for a ship that is 232.558 times more massive than the Nagato, to survive a blast 46 times more powerful than the Crossroads test. This of course, not taking into account the denser armor of this 10mio ton ship, and whatever physical properties that armor has, or its configuration. Denied.

Well, it's not me who started with "cfrac". I only assumed 300km/s, 0.001c, in my previous calculations. 300km/s is 10 times over RL capabilities and beyond MT, but seems within high-PMT and hard-FT.

Regardless of who started it, you haven't budged away from the much vaunted C-frac since it was mentioned.

Only mass works. Everything acts like a non-viscous fluid during the hypervelocity impact. Solid, liquid, dense gas - no matter. Just splash, regardless of whether it is salt water or diamond.

You'll need to provide a source for this, since what research I've done in the area doesn't seem to claim that matter with properties we don't know about all acting similar.

When we have the choice, we make rocket-powered lances.

So basically, you're sidestepping. Congratulations, you've less credibility after typing a single sentence than all of your fallacy filled arguments combined.

What differentiates space from Earth is lack of drag and strong gravity. On Earth, the fighter can only fly a certain distance. In space, practically any distance which matters in combat.

So... your point?

Technology? No, it's not about technology.

So you're trying to play word cames with me now eh? Too bad that wasn't what I was talking about, or anyone else here when they use the word technology.

So, technology is the means to create something you already know about. Implement the draft. But there's no scientific knowledge of a way to resist heavy hypervelocity impact. Technology is useless, it takes changing fundamental science.

As I said earlier, till we get something other than you opinion: denied.

Um, yes? Did you just ask that question?
Yes, I did.

The Japanese BB Nagato masses under 43ktons, it survived two atomic blasts with yields surpassing both Hiroshima and Nagasaki
It survived distant explosions. Just shock waves. Not explosions right inside, passing through the entire ship.

It is thusly not in the realm of impossibility for a ship that is 232.558 times more massive than the Nagato, to survive a blast 46 times more powerful than the Crossroads test.
KE projectile hit is nowhere like a nuke exploded a good distance away.
First of all, that projectile will pierce that ship. More specifically, it will take some mass with it.
Second, along all the path of piercing, there will be a conical wave of destruction, passing right through the ship's structure.


You'll need to provide a source for this, since what research I've done in the area doesn't seem to claim that matter with properties we don't know about all acting similar.
If you have done research in the area, please specify what. If it wasn't entirely classified, I'd like to know the paper title and where I can get it. If it was, I'd still be pleased to know at which corporation or agency you did it and what about.


Otherwise, it seems to me that you don't even realize what is hypervelocity impact. It's an impact where the material doesn't resist. It doesn't generate any resistance, as resistance is generated only in response to the load, the pressure wave passing through the material; at hypervelocity impacts the projectile moves faster than the pressure wave, meeting no resistance. The only resistance is the inertia of the mass it has to move - not of the material's structure.


So... your point?
Fighters don't have to attack from close range.

As I said earlier, till we get something other than you opinion
You're undermining your own position.
I assume there's no scientific knowledge of a way to resist heavy high hypervelocity impact, besides separation and compartmentalization.
You opposed it.

Now, what you should do? Right, tell that way.

Yes, I did.

And you just answered a rhetorical question, congratulations.


It survived distant explosions. Just shock waves. Not explosions right inside, passing through the entire ship.

You say distant as if the explosions happened from miles away. They didn't. Yes, they were indeed not direct impacts, but alls the same: they survived blasts that leveled entire cities. Extending this to the current debate: a 10 mio ton BB in FT can survive a pathetic megaton level blast (lets not forget that there is no over-pressure in space, which negates another feature of a nukes destructive capabilities).

KE projectile hit is nowhere like a nuke exploded a good distance away.
First of all, that projectile will pierce that ship. More specifically, it will take some mass with it.
Second, along all the path of piercing, there will be a conical wave of destruction, passing right through the ship's structure.

It will will it? First you need prove your statement about HVI being true. Second we have to believe that the ship is made out of tissue paper for the cone of destruction hypothesis to be true, which we don't.

If you have done research in the area, please specify what. If it wasn't entirely classified, I'd like to know the paper title and where I can get it. If it was, I'd still be pleased to know at which corporation or agency you did it and what about.

Excuse me, research was not meant to be taken literally. I mean what I have read through various articles posted up upon the web, and conversations with those in the draftroom. Second, where is your great citation?

Otherwise, it seems to me that you don't even realize what is hypervelocity impact. It's an impact where the material doesn't resist. It doesn't generate any resistance, as resistance is generated only in response to the load, the pressure wave passing through the material; at hypervelocity impacts the projectile moves faster than the pressure wave, meeting no resistance. The only resistance is the inertia of the mass it has to move - not of the material's structure.

... No, actually. At least, I haven't seen it defined in such a way. HVI = an impact at hypervelocities. How this translates into all matter behave the exact same way regardless of its composition is still beyond me, though.

Fighters don't have to attack from close range.

They do if they want to hit anything with whatever they're carrying short of missiles that will have less speed and ability than missiles launched from a ship.

You're undermining your own position.
I assume there's no scientific knowledge of a way to resist heavy high hypervelocity impact, besides separation and compartmentalization.
You opposed it.

You've yet to prove your assertion, either. Which goes against not only common sense but also current understanding of what an HVI really is, unless you care to provide a damn source for everything you continuously claim. (All the while getting away from the fact that missiles>fighters and that a capship >fighters).

Now, what you should do? Right, tell that way.

You first, since you've yet to support any of your arguments.

You'll need to provide a source for this, since what research I've done in the area doesn't seem to claim that matter with properties we don't know about all acting similar.


Well, AFAIK, it's just a matter of physics, not the characteristic of the material. The idea is that at hypervelocity impact what is impacting begins to act like a fluid, and what is resistance responds accordingly by doing the same thing - so it would be as if there was no resistance against it. It's the principle behind HEAT penetration. Ultimately, the way of defeating it is attempting to break it up by inducing yaw or what have you.

Yes, I did.It survived distant explosions. Just shock waves. Not explosions right inside, passing through the entire ship.


You say distant as if the explosions happened from miles away. They didn't. Yes, they were indeed not direct impacts, but alls the same: they survived blasts that leveled entire cities. Extending this to the current debate: a 10 mio ton BB in FT can survive a pathetic megaton level blast (lets not forget that there is no over-pressure in space, which negates another feature of a nukes destructive capabilities).

Well, there were two battleships at Crossroads. Arkansas and Nagato. The German heavy cruiser Prinz Eugen was also there.

Able was an airburst, and didn't really do anything to Nagato, and Nagato was about 1600 yards from ground zero. I don't know how far Nagato was from Baker, but given that Baker was an underwater blast, it may as well have been a direct hit. Either way, it still took Nagato five days to sink after Baker, and that was without any damage control and with the purposeful sabotage done by US work crews after the Able blast.

Arkansas sank as well, even faster than Nagato, I believe, but Prinz Eugen survived both blasts relatively unscathed, but was too radioactive to repair the minor leaks caused by Baker. She capsized six months later.

Context: Thread is not about personal opinion. You don't seem to understand. The phrase "missiles>fighters>capships" was my personal opinion. I highlighted it because that's what differentiates it from the rest of my post.

And you just answered a rhetorical question, congratulations. Not exactly. I rather invited you to answer the question.

Yes, they were indeed not direct impacts, but alls the same: they survived blasts that leveled entire cities.
Actually "leveled entire cities" would be less poetically described as "left a small zone of rumble, broke buildings around and started a lot of fires". But that's not the point. City buildings are actually very fragile, built only to withstand their own weight, the pressure of wind and other natural loads.
The distance in the Crossroads experiment was many hundreds of yards. That's a lot for a nuclear explosion of that scale. That's more than the size of a ship.

lets not forget that there is no over-pressure in space, which negates another feature of a nukes destructive capabilities
That's why KE is better than nuke. There is no overpressure in space. There is overpressure in the material the ship is built of. High-energy, high-impulse hypervelocity impact produces a conical destruction way through the ship itself. The ship itself becomes the material for that storm which ruins cities in case of nukes. You have a lot of armor or a very sturdy structure - it's OK, that armor and structure join the storm. In fact, a KE impact is way more efficient than a nuke: it doesn't waste energy on radiation, it all is passed to the ship, turning it into new penetrating elements. Like an avalanche.


First you need prove your statement about HVI being true.
http://hitf.jsc.nasa.gov/hitfpub/problem/physics.html
If you want just dictionary definitions:
http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/H/hypervelocity_impact.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypervelocity
Exact confirmation of my words:
http://hitf.jsc.nasa.gov/hitfpub/problem/hydrodynamic.html
" During a hypervelocity impact between two metal objects, the metals can behave for short periods of time like fluids. This phenomenon, called hydrodynamic flow, is not a result of temperature melting the metal, but rather is caused by extremely high stresses concentrations generated within the metal during impact. "
[...]
"Impact into this thick, semi-infinite target is very much like a drop of fluid hitting a liquid surface. "


Second we have to believe that the ship is made out of tissue paper for the cone of destruction hypothesis to be true, which we don't.
Post the specifications of the ship in question and I'll explain in terms of impulse and energy why it will be penetrated and destroyed by a central hypervelocity impact by an object 1,000,000 times lighter, at velocity of 0.01c. Or heavier at lower velocity, or lighter but faster.


Which goes against not only common sense
Yes, it does.
It must.
Using common sense is the worst fallacy possible.

but also current understanding of what an HVI really is,
Lie.

unless you care to provide a damn source for everything you continuously claim.
I did.

The distance in the Crossroads experiment was many hundreds of yards. That's a lot for a nuclear explosion of that scale. That's more than the size of a ship.
http://www.nukefix.org/ <= USE. PLEASE.

Thanks. I know what you mean. Yes, some ships were closer. Some were further. Still in general they were hundreds of meters from the blast center.

It's called debunking fallacy. If you have a problem with it then don't bother debating.

You and the other two individuals who are with you don't debate, you simply hurl insults, snide comments and ignore major fields of human study like history and science in hopes that if you yell loud enough the rest of us will concede your point.

The only fallacy here is your believe that this will work.

I will however give you one point. If the size of electronic hardware is a key determiner in effectiveness in a situation where fighters face capital ships in a fleet action you are right. Fighters are indeed severely outclassed. Unless they are able to launch, as either you or one of your partners stated, missile spam.

Then all bets are off as no defense so far in history has been 100% effective nor is likely to be.

But the central question is not whether fighters are obsolete in a fleet action but whether fighters are obsolete in FT.

That you haven't proved and cannot prove as history, science, tactics, cost effectiveness and a whole range of other factors indicates that light relatively inexpensive attack platforms are extremely valuable for other missions that many of us have posted routinely in this thread.

Well, there were two battleships at Crossroads. Arkansas and Nagato. The German heavy cruiser Prinz Eugen was also there.

Able was an airburst, and didn't really do anything to Nagato, and Nagato was about 1600 yards from ground zero. I don't know how far Nagato was from Baker, but given that Baker was an underwater blast, it may as well have been a direct hit. Either way, it still took Nagato five days to sink after Baker, and that was without any damage control and with the purposeful sabotage done by US work crews after the Able blast.

Arkansas sank as well, even faster than Nagato, I believe, but Prinz Eugen survived both blasts relatively unscathed, but was too radioactive to repair the minor leaks caused by Baker. She capsized six months later.

The New York was also present, as was the Pennsylvania I am fairly certain. In any case, none of the heavies were lost to the airburst (first test), but several had their bottoms literally blown out by the underwater burst (second test)

In any even, the two blasts made all of the surviving vessels too radioactive to be salvagable (or really safely boarded, but they did anyway, ignorance of long term effects of exposure being the issue).

In short, no major warship has ever actually suffered a direct hit from a nuke, just a near miss. However, simple physics will tell you nothing survives the total destruction zone of a thermo nuke (temperature of the sun and all that) except apparently graphite.

Which is what they planned to line the blast chamber for Project Orion if they had ever built it. Of course those would have been low yield nukes.

Main reason no one built any major armored warships until the 1990s (and those had kevlar instead of steel armor) is that there was a major surplus on the NATO side (we had World War II cruisers and battleships to spare until well into the 1970s) and because once tactical nuclear weapons became available, it seemed pointless to armor ships that would be vaporized by a direct hit anyway.

Only when PGMS started showing up in large numbers and tactical nukes were no longer considered the weapon of choice did designers begin to consider armor again.

Hypervelocity missiles (which are already being designed) will doom armor again for a while until somebody comes up with something better then current options that is affordable for a warship.

Incidently, forgot to mention, the first Bikini Test got what is called mission kills on essentially the whole fleet, which is probably more then sufficient, and the US Navy for one found very sobering.

You don't seem to understand. The phrase "missiles>fighters>capships" was my personal opinion. I highlighted it because that's what differentiates it from the rest of my post.

Differentiates how? Your arguments have been consistent with your opinion since your posted, so I fail to see a difference.

Not exactly. I rather invited you to answer the question.

The answer is obvious to anyone who knows what they're talking about.

Actually "leveled entire cities" would be less poetically described as "left a small zone of rumble, broke buildings around and started a lot of fires". But that's not the point. City buildings are actually very fragile, built only to withstand their own weight, the pressure of wind and other natural loads.
The distance in the Crossroads experiment was many hundreds of yards. That's a lot for a nuclear explosion of that scale. That's more than the size of a ship.

So you've never seen photos describing damage from the event I take it? Course, this is also you just side-stepping, again.

That's why KE is better than nuke. There is no overpressure in space. There is overpressure in the material the ship is built of. High-energy, high-impulse hypervelocity impact produces a conical destruction way through the ship itself. The ship itself becomes the material for that storm which ruins cities in case of nukes. You have a lot of armor or a very sturdy structure - it's OK, that armor and structure join the storm. In fact, a KE impact is way more efficient than a nuke: it doesn't waste energy on radiation, it all is passed to the ship, turning it into new penetrating elements. Like an avalanche.

So first thing we accept the fact that you disregard the argument about a 10mio ton ship surviving 1mt easily to move back onto kinetics, right. Good to know.

Course, how this cone going at these velocities (which your own source seems to describe as not-so-dangerous due to the projectiles breaking up at such high velocities) gets around such structural quirks such as the shape and form of the armor in question, as well as its density and whatever else people may design in twenty years that resists HVIs. Your argument only works again, if the ship is made out of tissue paper.

http://hitf.jsc.nasa.gov/hitfpub/problem/physics.html
If you want just dictionary definitions:
http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/H/hypervelocity_impact.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypervelocity
Exact confirmation of my words:
http://hitf.jsc.nasa.gov/hitfpub/problem/hydrodynamic.html
" During a hypervelocity impact between two metal objects, the metals can behave for short periods of time like fluids. This phenomenon, called hydrodynamic flow, is not a result of temperature melting the metal, but rather is caused by extremely high stresses concentrations generated within the metal during impact. "
[...]
"Impact into this thick, semi-infinite target is very much like a drop of fluid hitting a liquid surface. "

Just so we can get back on track, I'll concede that HVI's cause these elements in super-duper-uber-hard FT to be useless without sufficient density to back them up. Though, this doesn't help your premise, because to attain the velocities you want is to rewrite your vaunted laws of physics to the point that energy shields are more than feasible. Otherwise, the velocities we're talking about are too slow to be an impediment to the armoured capship.

Post the specifications of the ship in question and I'll explain in terms of impulse and energy why it will be penetrated and destroyed by a central hypervelocity impact by an object 1,000,000 times lighter, at velocity of 0.01c. Or heavier at lower velocity, or lighter but faster.

No you won't, because you failed already in trying to do that. A 10mio ton warship, with meters of thick armor that is shaped and formed to resist these kinds of impacts, will not kill this capship. We've been over it already.

Yes, it does.
It must.
Using common sense is the worst fallacy possible.

You obviously don't know what common sense is then, or your use such a broad definition that the thing itself becomes meaningless.

Lie.

It's not a way to kill a capship in the way you describe, denied, again.

I did.

Congratulations, it still treats the capship like a wad of paper in space, and therefore is still not a real argument.

It also ignores the active defense systems that a capship has, such as those nifty anti-fighter missiles which will make your treasured fighters as obsolete as we've already asserted.

You and the other two individuals who are with you don't debate, you simply hurl insults, snide comments and ignore major fields of human study like history and science in hopes that if you yell loud enough the rest of us will concede your point.

Er, no. That would be you since well, we've made well-supported arguments throughout this thread and you well... haven't/

The only fallacy here is your believe that this will work.

No matter how hard you climb, you'll never attain the moral high-ground.

I will however give you one point. If the size of electronic hardware is a key determiner in effectiveness in a situation where fighters face capital ships in a fleet action you are right. Fighters are indeed severely outclassed. Unless they are able to launch, as either you or one of your partners stated, missile spam.

And even then a capital ship can fire off more missiles than fighters can.

Then all bets are off as no defense so far in history has been 100% effective nor is likely to be.

Arrows can't pierce fortress walls.

Crossbow bolts can't penetrate tank armor.

What were you saying?

But the central question is not whether fighters are obsolete in a fleet action but whether fighters are obsolete in FT.

In their traditional roles they are. Only in several areas, as already outlined by Der Angst himself, are they more useful than missiles.

That you haven't proved and cannot prove as history, science, tactics, cost effectiveness and a whole range of other factors indicates that light relatively inexpensive attack platforms are extremely valuable for other missions that many of us have posted routinely in this thread.

*Sigh* The crucifix doesn't suit you, so come off it. We've proven that fighters as seen in HW and other games which use them are obsolete in NS FT in their traditional kill-super-capship roles. You haven't managed to disprove that. You've only tried connecting unconnectible events in history, thereby committing fallacy, and thereby proving nothing. Other than I waste my time, and waste if often.

In short, no major warship has ever actually suffered a direct hit from a nuke, just a near miss. However, simple physics will tell you nothing survives the total destruction zone of a thermo nuke (temperature of the sun and all that) except apparently graphite.

Er, no physics does not. It will tell you that sustained temperatures will indeed vaporize a warship subjected to such, but it does not claim that a 1kt nuke will kill a 100kt warship as you seem to think.

Main reason no one built any major armored warships until the 1990s (and those had kevlar instead of steel armor) is that there was a major surplus on the NATO side (we had World War II cruisers and battleships to spare until well into the 1970s) and because once tactical nuclear weapons became available, it seemed pointless to armor ships that would be vaporized by a direct hit anyway.

... No. No one built them because WWII-easque warships were too vulnerable to aircraft and missiles to be effective (As well as to damn expensive especially when lost). Also the development of tacnukes meant nothing: because neither side was willing to use them due to fears of a MAD situation occurring. Also wet ships still use steel-based armor, I don't know where you got Kevlar from.

Only when PGMS started showing up in large numbers and tactical nukes were no longer considered the weapon of choice did designers begin to consider armor again.

I believe by PGMS you mean precision guided munitions? Also tac nukes are still a weapon of choice if they could be deployed without starting WWIII. How we haven't been focusing on armor is of course beyond me...

Hypervelocity missiles (which are already being designed) will doom armor again for a while until somebody comes up with something better then current options that is affordable for a warship.

Missiles have a problem with being fragile and not too threatening to heavily armored ships, especially those with decent CIWS aboard.

Incidently, forgot to mention, the first Bikini Test got what is called mission kills on essentially the whole fleet, which is probably more then sufficient, and the US Navy for one found very sobering.

I don't remember where Castle Bravo sunk an entire fleet.

... No. No one built them because WWII-easque warships were too vulnerable to aircraft and missiles to be effective (As well as to damn expensive especially when lost). ...Also wet ships still use steel-based armor, I don't know where you got Kevlar from.
Protip: No armored warship has ever been sunk by a missile.

Also: "Vital areas are protected by two layers of steel and 70t of Kevlar armour." (http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/burke/)


Missiles have a problem with being fragile and not too threatening to heavily armored ships, especially those with decent CIWS aboard.
That kind of contradicts your previous statement, now doesn't it?


I don't remember where Castle Bravo sunk an entire fleet.
He was referring to Able, and while Able only sank Sakawa, a few DDs and some noncombatants, it did enough damage to everything else that mission completion would be impossible. Bravo would have neutralized a fleet's combat capability completely.

Remember, you don't have to sink a ship to take it out of the war. Shokaku was damaged at Coral Sea badly enough that she wasn't repaired in time for Midway. Zuikaku on the other hand was undamaged but had taken so many losses in her air crew that she was also out of action.

Er, no physics does not. It will tell you that sustained temperatures will indeed vaporize a warship subjected to such, but it does not claim that a 1kt nuke will kill a 100kt warship as you seem to think.
.

1 KT nuke would definitely cause a mission kill on a Nimitz class carrier and if a waterline hit, might even sink it. It wouldn't vaporize it. However, most Cold War Tactical nuclear weapons for torpedoes and antiship missiles were much larger.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_weapons#United_States

more thorough lists can be found, but the above is a good start.


... No. No one built them because WWII-easque warships were too vulnerable to aircraft and missiles to be effective (As well as to damn expensive especially when lost). Also the development of tacnukes meant nothing: because neither side was willing to use them due to fears of a MAD situation occurring. Also wet ships still use steel-based armor, I don't know where you got Kevlar from. .

http://composite.about.com/cs/companynew/a/bpr_usga.htm

http://www.geocities.com/dominantlogistics/futurenavy.html

http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-9355811/armour

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/dd-963.htm



I believe by PGMS you mean precision guided munitions? Also tac nukes are still a weapon of choice if they could be deployed without starting WWIII. How we haven't been focusing on armor is of course beyond me... .

armor is too expensive is the main issue there.



Missiles have a problem with being fragile and not too threatening to heavily armored ships, especially those with decent CIWS aboard..

That hasn't been proven, as the only major fleet engagement was the 1982 Falklands war, where none of the RN ships were so equipped, and the missile attacks in the mid and late 1980s in the Persian Gulf did indeed cripple the USS Stark (a FFG) due to surprise but were otherwise mainly aimed at tankers without such weapons. Probably so, but not proven. A mass attack against a US CVBG was never carried out. We think the US CVBG would have been successful in defending itself, but a lot of historians aren't sure.



I don't remember where Castle Bravo sunk an entire fleet.

didn't say it did... said it got a mission kill. In other words, all ships took sufficient damage as to be incapable of operations if it had been a manned fleet with a mission.

Er, no. That would be you since well, we've made well-supported arguments throughout this thread and you well... haven't/ .

actually, no you haven't. You guys have routinely cited one website, which is a good one, but not the only source or even opinion.



No matter how hard you climb, you'll never attain the moral high-ground..

sure I can, I havent felt the need to be insulting and it was you and your buddies who began personal attacks, not anyone else. Consider it retaliation.


And even then a capital ship can fire off more missiles than fighters can..

sure, but it depends if fighters can be built at a much more economic cost in numbers sufficient to be a match for that capital ship. Then that is no longer a valid arguement



Arrows can't pierce fortress walls.

Crossbow bolts can't penetrate tank armor.

What were you saying?.

this would be one of those false analogies you routinely accuse others of using. Cannons brought down the castle walls, infantry storms fortresses (at a price, but does so nonetheless), and TOW missiles, tank cannons and napalm dropped from a fighter routinely take out tanks.



In their traditional roles they are. Only in several areas, as already outlined by Der Angst himself, are they more useful than missiles..

which would seem to invalidate your whole premise if you give fighters any useful missions at all in FT.



*Sigh* The crucifix doesn't suit you, so come off it. We've proven that fighters as seen in HW and other games which use them are obsolete in NS FT in their traditional kill-super-capship roles. You haven't managed to disprove that. You've only tried connecting unconnectible events in history, thereby committing fallacy, and thereby proving nothing. Other than I waste my time, and waste if often.

The premise is that fighters are obsolete in future tech, which we believe we have disproved. Fleet engagements are only a part of that, and you guys have only proved that in a specific model, fighters would be ineffective.

But its not the only model.

Feel free to stop wasting our time any time you wish.

In response to the original question, in my opinion fighters would be a viable space based weapon system.

The fighter is such a multi-role platform unit that it would be simply stupid to disregard it out of hand as a use full space vehicle.

Some of the uses for fighters in space could be,

Recon, Sensor range enhancement;
The use of the humble fighter to perform deep penetrating reconnaissance runs into enemy/unknown space while keeping your expensive super-dreadnoughts in a relatively safe area or the use of fighters at the extreme ranges of your mother vessels sensors to provide extended sensor range and therefore increased accuracy over such ranges.

Vessel Defence,
Missiles might be a good kill vehicle, but along with your super-dreadnoughts defensive turrets shooting down the missiles your fighters can chase down/ shoot down enemy missiles before they are in range of your defensive turrets affording you greater protection.

Ambush,
Fighter craft, due to their size, could navigate asteroid fields to get the ‘jump’ on enemy vessels as they traversed nearby space. This should be acceptable due to the amount of sensor echo created by the asteroid field.

In the case of two super dreadnoughts slugging it out the vessel with fighters would have an advantage due to the fact that while the super dreadnought with fighters only has one attacking vessel launching missiles and energy/kinetic round from one vector to track and attack/defend while the other would have numerous attacking vessels from multiple vectors launching missiles and energy/kinetic rounds to contend with thus having to spread its defensive/offensive weaponry over a much, much wider area.

As for defensive weapons systems being 99.9% effective, yeah right. On the other hand one could say that fighters have an advanced suite of sensors to alert the pilot of the probability of detection and lock-on, as well predictive threat analysis programmes to steer the fighter around defensive batteries giving the fighter a 99.9% chance of getting with in range to fire its weapons and extract to the carrier/super dreadnought.

Protip: No armored warship has ever been sunk by a missile.
Not really.

German Fritz X missile, not really an advanced or a heavy one, was quite successful at that. It was used just a few time, each time when it hit (you understand WWII level of accuracy) the results were destructive. The flagship of the Italian navy, a very modern for WWII battleship Roma was successfully sunk by a Fritz X missile. Built in 1942, sunk in 1943.
That missile proved able pierce a battleship (Warspite) top to bottom before exploding, and, besides sinking Roma, disabled a few of them, poor fuse timing making it less destructive than it could be. All times they hit, they penetrated.
Specs and refs here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_X

In fact, anti-ship missiles, which already with WWII tech had superior penetration to shells, were one of the three reason no more ships were built with heavy armor. (Reasons were: torpedoes - armor makes things only worse; airbombs - too powerful; and, finally, missiles).
Well, many modern ships carry some sort of light or even structural armor, from Kirov to future Zumwalt, but it serves a different purpose. It is not designed to defeat anti-ship weapons like missiles, but rather to protect against incidental hits by light projectiles, fragments of missiles which hit other spots, and, for spall liners (Kevlar), reduce damage caused by spall. Not all missiles are like Shipwreck, which will disable any modern ship and burn out or sink most, there are many lighter ones, which can do less damage if light armor, particularly internal, is applied.


Differentiates how? Your arguments have been consistent with your opinion since your posted, so I fail to see a difference.
They were not opinion, they were mostly retelling well studied data.

So first thing we accept the fact that you disregard the argument about a 10mio ton ship surviving 1mt easily to move back onto kinetics, right.
I never said it will survive 1 MT. It won't, if that megaton is detonated inside.
That's what happens with kinetics.


Crossbow bolts can't penetrate tank armor.
They do, if you fire them at hypervelocity. In fact, anti-tank long rod penetrators are just a modern version of these, despite not even reaching hypervelocity.

Missiles have a problem with being fragile and not too threatening to heavily armored ships, especially those with decent CIWS aboard.
We've been over this on the NS Draftroom. Modern missiles, and I mean since 70s, were built specifically to defeat CIWS. No, they weren't built to penetrate battleship armor, like Fritz X, but that's just because battleships were phased out by better ships.
If we're talking about space, the missile's final stage would be a solid short rod of depleted uranium, tungsten or whatever, with a pretty simple course correction system.


A 10mio ton warship, with meters of thick armor that is shaped and formed to resist these kinds of impacts, will not kill this capship.
"Meters of thick armor". You appear to have not read my links. Thick armor is useless. Remember: at HVI it all acts like a fluid. Even at perfectly feasible HVI. What speed do you consider feasible?
Speeds above 8 km/s already make solid armor inefficient. Speeds like 300km/s and above make even meters of armor useless against anything 1 tonne or above.

Only huge, long outstretched protective screens and Whipple shields, together with intense compartmentalization and redundancy, can help.

Please, read about hypervelocity impacts studies. Meters of thick armor are the same as paper for hypervelocity projectiles. The impulse stored in a 1-tonne, 300km/s projectile is sufficient to blast its way through many meters of steel. While neither Lanz-Odermatt nor Anderson equations can adequately estimate penetration in high-hypervelocity impacts, for solid armor that can be estimated by simple physics, albeit with low accuracy. I'll take low estimates.

The energy, 3e5^2 /2*1e3=4.5e13J, is sufficient to provide velocity of 1km/s to 4.5e13/(1e6*1e3 /2)=9e4=90,000 tonnes of solid matter. It means that 90,000 tonnes of your ship surrounding the impact point will turn into something like gun-fired slugs, flying all around it. Assuming for simplicity a hemispherical shape, that forms the destructive hemisphere with radius of d^1/3*(90,000*2)^1/3=d^1/3*56, where d is density in tonnes/m^2. For steel, that will give 28m radius. For uranium or other heaviest metals, about 20m.

In simpler terms, 90,000 tons, which will be within 28m for steel, 20m for (depleted) uranium radius, will turn into destructive spall. Not just a few meters, right? And you need something behind them to stop these destructive slugs. However, just the mass of the first solid armor layer, the layer going further to damage, will be 220t/m^2 for steel. There will be further layers, but, well, there normal low-velocity physics works again and advanced armor can work. Keep in mind that armor of heavier materials will be even heavier.

Now, that's why I asked for ship's dimensions. Assuming the ship is about 85% armor, and so 75% of the ship is the first layer, it allows to protect ~23,000m^2 with 5,000,000 tonnes. For spherical ship, that will mean radius of (34,000/pi/4)^0.5=52 meters. It's for the centerline of armor, it will go 14m both sides; that's why I assumed such large armor ratio. So a 10,000,000 spherical ship, protected by steel against 1 tonne at 300km/s, will be a thick sphere with outer radius of 66m and inner radius of 38m, not counting the second layer. The internal volume would be just 38^3*4/3*pi=230,000m^3, similar to a modern aircraft carrier.

That's what it takes to protect a ship with meters of thick armor. "Protect" doesn't mean immunity, though. Each hit will splash a sizable crater out of it, about 40% wide. Take it as a guideline. It will vary depending on the armor composition, one way or another, but still won't leave much for the ship interior itself, until absolutely absurd masses. Furthermore, a heavier or faster projectile will defeat the armor.


Now is it clear why modern spacecraft aren't protected with solid armor anymore, but rather compartmentalize, carry Whipple shields and try to outstretch them as far as possible? And they are only subjected to, practically, dust.

actually, no you haven't. You guys have routinely cited one website, which is a good one, but not the only source or even opinion.

I don't actually remember citing anything. I remember lampooning um... every point you've tried to make here by pointing out that fallacy != well supported argument.

sure I can, I havent felt the need to be insulting and it was you and your buddies who began personal attacks, not anyone else. Consider it retaliation.

Tu quoque. The hill just gets steeper and steeper every time you say a word, doesn't it?

sure, but it depends if fighters can be built at a much more economic cost in numbers sufficient to be a match for that capital ship. Then that is no longer a valid arguement.

They can't? Because missiles are a prerequisite to destroy a capship, and fighters are not, thus making a fighter an unneeded burden to the wartime economy?

this would be one of those false analogies you routinely accuse others of using. Cannons brought down the castle walls, infantry storms fortresses (at a price, but does so nonetheless), and TOW missiles, tank cannons and napalm dropped from a fighter routinely take out tanks.

It's called pointing out a false argument: that there is no perfect defense. The argument was not used to justify anything. Course, you'd have to know what a fallacy of analogy is first... instead of repeating the word and using it inappropriately whenever the fancy strikes you.

which would seem to invalidate your whole premise if you give fighters any useful missions at all in FT.

Only if my premise was that fighters are entirely, totally, one-hundred percent useless in FT, which it's not. You don't read much do you?

The premise is that fighters are obsolete in future tech, which we believe we have disproved. Fleet engagements are only a part of that, and you guys have only proved that in a specific model, fighters would be ineffective.

The premise is that fighters are ineffective in their traditional roles of capship killing (I could have sworn this was mentioned perhaps a dozen times throughout this discussion... in fact, I know it has since I've bothered to read it before posting). They are. Most of their traditional roles can be taken care of by probes, missiles, or other platforms that are both more efficient and survivable. Course, why I have to rehash things that have already been said is only evidence that some people (you) don't bother to read the thread before they post anything. Yet I'm accused of bad-form... tsk tsk.

But its not the only model.

Feel free to stop wasting our time any time you wish.

I believe with your constant bitching about our style, it is you who is whining. I would rather you just stopped trying, but that's not whining, more a matter of preference.

-deleted-

Not really.
German Fritz X missile, not really an advanced or a heavy one, was quite successful at that. It was used just a few time, each time when it hit (you understand WWII level of accuracy) the results were destructive. The flagship of the Italian navy, a very modern battleship Roma was successfully sunk by a Fritz X missile. Built in 1942, sunk in 1943.
That missile proved able pierce a battleship (Warspite) top to bottom before exploding, and, besides sinking Roma, disabled a few of them, poor fuse timing making it less destructive than it could be.
Specs and refs here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_X

Bah, that rocket powered glide bomb hardly counts. Besides, deck shots from bombs are deadly regardless of if the bomb is guided or not.

Protip: No armored warship has ever been sunk by a missile.

Also: "Vital areas are protected by two layers of steel and 70t of Kevlar armour." (http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/burke/)

This isn't 4chan; using those oh-so-witty phrases such as 'protip' actually do the reverse and make you look less intelligent, especially when this is compounded by your inability to comprehend anything. No knight has ever been killed by a .50cal bullet, just as no Renaissance-era castle has ever been flattened by a nuke. Does that mean that said weapons would be/are ineffective? No. It means their existence makes having knights and castles a waste of resources. Just as trying to rebuild the WWII Pacific fleet became an obvious waste of resources once air-craft and missiles proved to be so decidedly fatal.

That kind of contradicts your previous statement, now doesn't it?

No one can ever accuse of you knowing how to read, now can they? Previous statement: past tense. Second statement: Present tense. Good job.

He was referring to Able, and while Able only sank Sakawa, a few DDs and some noncombatants, it did enough damage to everything else that mission completion would be impossible. Bravo would have neutralized a fleet's combat capability completely.

Ah, my mistake, I thought he was referring to Bravo.

Remember, you don't have to sink a ship to take it out of the war. Shokaku was damaged at Coral Sea badly enough that she wasn't repaired in time for Midway. Zuikaku on the other hand was undamaged but had taken so many losses in her air crew that she was also out of action.

It generally helps that your attack does more than warp the armor with heat, which is what low-yield nukes would do to NS-style capship armor, and assuming that armor for modern ships has advanced at all, the same would hold true there.

1 KT nuke would definitely cause a mission kill on a Nimitz class carrier and if a waterline hit, might even sink it. It wouldn't vaporize it. However, most Cold War Tactical nuclear weapons for torpedoes and antiship missiles were much larger.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_weapons#United_States

more thorough lists can be found, but the above is a good start.

Perhaps. I'm unaware of the effect that a nuke of Hiroshima yields would have on modern naval armor, but I know that a 1kt nuke would not present much of a problem to said ships (Course, hitting a carrier's deck would be problematic, but then again that isn't unique to nukes). But would a direct hit by a 1kt nuke destroy something that is a tad less fragile and a tad less dependent upon its surface being in 100% pristine condition to work?

http://composite.about.com/cs/companynew/a/bpr_usga.htm

http://www.geocities.com/dominantlogistics/futurenavy.html

http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-9355811/armour

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/dd-963.htm

I'm not going to read through four links to try and figure out how this relates to the quoted text. Either summarize it, or don't bother pasting the links.

armor is too expensive is the main issue there.

All current military equipment disagrees.

That hasn't been proven, as the only major fleet engagement was the 1982 Falklands war, where none of the RN ships were so equipped, and the missile attacks in the mid and late 1980s in the Persian Gulf did indeed cripple the USS Stark (a FFG) due to surprise but were otherwise mainly aimed at tankers without such weapons. Probably so, but not proven. A mass attack against a US CVBG was never carried out. We think the US CVBG would have been successful in defending itself, but a lot of historians aren't sure.

You don't know how a missile is designed do you? Principally that being as dense as a shell is not good, and that being as fragile as it is means trying to create kinetic kill vehicles out of missiles is a waste of resources.

didn't say it did... said it got a mission kill. In other words, all ships took sufficient damage as to be incapable of operations if it had been a manned fleet with a mission.

After... two nuclear bombs went off? Against > Hiroshima level yields? With WWII era armor? How surprising.

Bah, that rocket powered glide bomb hardly counts. Besides, deck shots from bombs are deadly regardless of if the bomb is guided or not.
Well, it was really derivative of a bomb, but still has the attributes of a guided missile.
However, modern missiles, if just modified a bit (just change the warhead to add a cap), would do the job even better. Particularly heavy ones: they are both heavier and much faster than Fritz X, and with much more payload.


But would a direct hit by a 1kt nuke destroy something that is a tad less fragile and a tad less dependent upon its surface being in 100% pristine condition to work?
Yes.
Even 1-tonne bombs dealt damage to battleships. 1000 tonnes would destroy any of them. Everything within the fireball is evaporated or liquefied, while the overpressure wave would smash the rest.

Breaking in half is pretty much guaranteed. Ship's structure simply can't withstand this amount of energy. To better imagine, take a pencil, put it on a sofa and step on it with a shoe on.
Immediate sinking might be not achieved, but what remains would be just parts of the ship, floating due to compartmentalization, and quite possibly vertically. Though that would be more for NS-sized vessels rather than RL ones.

In response to the original question, in my opinion fighters would be a viable space based weapon system.

The fighter is such a multi-role platform unit that it would be simply stupid to disregard it out of hand as a use full space vehicle.

True today given current restrictions. But true tomorrow with sufficient advances in technology? Not really.

Recon, Sensor range enhancement;
The use of the humble fighter to perform deep penetrating reconnaissance runs into enemy/unknown space while keeping your expensive super-dreadnoughts in a relatively safe area or the use of fighters at the extreme ranges of your mother vessels sensors to provide extended sensor range and therefore increased accuracy over such ranges.

It'd be cheaper to use smaller probes; both in terms of monetary cost, and that of human life (or the computer systems that house the AI programs that you need in order to make a fighter function in this role).

Vessel Defence,
Missiles might be a good kill vehicle, but along with your super-dreadnoughts defensive turrets shooting down the missiles your fighters can chase down/ shoot down enemy missiles before they are in range of your defensive turrets affording you greater protection.

This is where we find agreement. DA pointed this out earlier; a fighter is useful here in that you expand your PD envelope and give it added maneuverability whilst the capship tries to kill the other capship.

Ambush,
Fighter craft, due to their size, could navigate asteroid fields to get the ‘jump’ on enemy vessels as they traversed nearby space. This should be acceptable due to the amount of sensor echo created by the asteroid field.

A sentient missile would be better in this role, both because of its lower profile, and inherent speed advantages. The primary problem is getting out uber FT sensors that are less-than-stupid when it comes to seeing fighters and other assorted things moving through space at the necessary velocities to reach the target area.

In the case of two super dreadnoughts slugging it out the vessel with fighters would have an advantage due to the fact that while the super dreadnought with fighters only has one attacking vessel launching missiles and energy/kinetic round from one vector to track and attack/defend while the other would have numerous attacking vessels from multiple vectors launching missiles and energy/kinetic rounds to contend with thus having to spread its defensive/offensive weaponry over a much, much wider area.

Missiles from fighters would hurt. Kinetic weapons and energy beams not so much (sure, if you had entirely fucking huge swarms, they might). The primary problem is that the SD with no fighter bays, but PD missile racks, just owned your fighter cloud with munitions that outclass the fighter in speed and agility.

As for defensive weapons systems being 99.9% effective, yeah right. On the other hand one could say that fighters have an advanced suite of sensors to alert the pilot of the probability of detection and lock-on, as well predictive threat analysis programmes to steer the fighter around defensive batteries giving the fighter a 99.9% chance of getting with in range to fire its weapons and extract to the carrier/super dreadnought.

A fighter is just a missile with a cockpit attached (thereby being inherently slower and less maneuverable...). If a missile has no luck (given it has more space for these programs than a fighter does while also having a higher yield and more speed) evading PD, what makes you think a fighter will?

No knight has ever been killed by a .50cal bullet
o rly? (http://www.historicenterprises.com/misc/matchlock2.jpg)

Just as trying to rebuild the WWII Pacific fleet became an obvious waste of resources once air-craft and missiles proved to be so decidedly fatal.
Lets just nevermind the part where the US carrier fleet completely flattened the Japanese navy because the Japanese aircraft and AA defenses were impotent and we had the ability to zerg rush. Or did you forget that we fielded the air wings of eleven (11) carriers against Yamato?


No one can ever accuse of you knowing how to read, now can they? Previous statement: past tense. Second statement: Present tense. Good job.
Because there are so many modern armored warships, right?

Oh, BTW, quad 40mm bofors are fine CIWS when you're packing as many as US ships did during WWII.


It generally helps that your attack does more than warp the armor with heat, which is what low-yield nukes would do to NS-style capship armor, and assuming that armor for modern ships has advanced at all, the same would hold true there.

Such as taking out electronics arrays, less armored secondary batteries, or cooking off any missiles or torpedoes that might happen to be anywhere near the deck? Just the destruction of the electronics would render most modern ships useless. The other two side effects would likely prove deadly.

It generally helps that your attack does more than warp the armor with heat, which is what low-yield nukes would do to NS-style capship armor
Unless it's a direct hit.

And let's not even get started about an explosion at waterline or below.

See what 600kg of TNT does to a ship:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/Mark_48_Torpedo_testing.jpg

You don't have to affect the armor. Breaking apart is enough to disable a ship.

Well, it was really derivative of a bomb, but still has the attributes of a guided missile.
However, modern missiles, if just modified a bit (just change the warhead to add a cap), would do the job even better. Particularly heavy ones: they are both heavier and much faster than Fritz X, and with much more payload.


That's the thing. It was a bomb. A guided bomb, but still a bomb. Bombs hit the lightly armored decks and have gravity to help make sure that they aren't deflected. A missile on the other hand will usually hit horizontally and strike the belt or superstructure. Unfortunately, they simply won't penetrate the belt of any armored warship and don't have big enough payloads to do any damage should they detonate on the outside of the hull. Sure, they can and likely will manhandle the superstructure, but short of fires resulting from it, superstructure damage has never sunk a ship. You have to put holes in the hull, and at or below the waterline.

That last bit also bodes especially ill for missiles against the hulls of hardened ships, since above the waterline and outside of the ship they're really going to behave like really, really shitty torpedoes but without the flooding.

Fighters can get into places Capitals Ships can't. The Independence Day movie portraded using one captured enemy fighter to destroy the mothership,
which in turn made the saucers vulnerable to missile attacks from fighter aircraft. This is one instance that fighters were very much needed to win the earths fight for survival.

Perhaps. I'm unaware of the effect that a nuke of Hiroshima yields would have on modern naval armor, but I know that a 1kt nuke would not present much of a problem to said ships (Course, hitting a carrier's deck would be problematic, but then again that isn't unique to nukes). But would a direct hit by a 1kt nuke destroy something that is a tad less fragile and a tad less dependent upon its surface being in 100% pristine condition to work?

Honestly, I wouldn't expect a modern warship to fare too much better than Sakawa did. Sure, Sakawa was in horrible shape before Able, but she was still a light cruiser. Her armor was probably at about the same level as modern naval armor.

That said, a 1kt hit on any ship will destroy it. Period.

Look up what the five ton Tallboy bombs (of which only 2.5 tons were explosives) did to Tirpitz. Then compare 5 (2.5) tons to 1000 tons.

I never said it will survive 1 MT. It won't, if that megaton is detonated inside.
That's what happens with kinetics.

That's not what happens. The energy is released upon contact with the ship. A kinetic round is not an AP shell or any other sort of explosive round that has a timer on it.

They do, if you fire them at hypervelocity. In fact, anti-tank long rod penetrators are just a modern version of these, despite not even reaching hypervelocity.

Wow, nice strawman there. Won't dignify it with a response other than that.

We've been over this on the NS Draftroom. Modern missiles, and I mean since 70s, were built specifically to defeat CIWS. No, they weren't built to penetrate battleship armor, like Fritz X, but that's just because battleships were phased out by better ships.

Does this change the fact that missiles are poor at penetrating dense armors due to their construction? Nope. That was in fact, my argument. Way to build another strawman, there.

If we're talking about space, the missile's final stage would be a solid short rod of depleted uranium, tungsten or whatever, with a pretty simple course correction system.

A missile is better as at carrying around 20mt of nuclear power than it is a single rod of dense metal. Though why we're even talking about this is beyond me.

"Meters of thick armor". You appear to have not read my links. Thick armor is useless. Remember: at HVI it all acts like a fluid. Even at perfectly feasible HVI. What speed do you consider feasible?
Speeds above 8 km/s already make solid armor inefficient. Speeds like 300km/s and above make even meters of armor useless against anything 1 tonne or above.

And you appear to misunderstand HVI, again. Because if thickness is irrelevant (it's not according to your same links) then a meteor impact on earht would pass straight through the planet onto the other side. Also. You. Keep. Committing. Missing. Argument. Fallacies. Add some support that a 1ton projectile traveling at sane Hard FT speeds can penetrate 3 meters of hyper dense armor, taking into account form and shape and whatever structural niceties that are designed against HVIs?

Only huge, long outstretched protective screens and Whipple shields, together with intense compartmentalization and redundancy, can help.

According to you, again. Without any actual support ("Bah! But my links!" For one agree that HVI above 10 or so km\s do less damage than at lower velocities, and also feature things about thickness you like to avoid every time you post).

Please, read about hypervelocity impacts studies. Meters of thick armor are the same as paper for hypervelocity projectiles. The impulse stored in a 1-tonne, 300km/s projectile is sufficient to blast its way through many meters of steel. While neither Lanz-Odermatt nor Anderson equations can adequately estimate penetration in high-hypervelocity impacts, for solid armor that can be estimated by simple physics, albeit with low accuracy. I'll take low estimates.

Er? No? I don't remember a meter of paper surviving (relatively) intact against a HVI as I did the block of aluminum that did. Also take into account HVIs at the velocities you desire are less effective than those at slower velocities, and the fact that the energy requirements to get something at those speeds goes well into "we have shields" territory.

The energy, 3e5^2 /2*1e3=4.5e13J, is sufficient to provide velocity of 1km/s to 4.5e13/(1e6*1e3 /2)=9e4=90,000 tonnes of solid matter. It means that 90,000 tonnes of your ship surrounding the impact point will turn into something like gun-fired slugs, flying all around it. Assuming for simplicity a hemispherical shape, that forms the destructive hemisphere with radius of d^1/3*(90,000*2)^1/3=d^1/3*56, where d is density in tonnes/m^2. For steel, that will give 28m radius. For uranium or other heaviest metals, about 20m.

I'm failing to see where you're trying to go with this, since it seems to rely on me accepting arguments that are either wrong or unsupported, which as previously mentioned: I do not.


That's what it takes to protect a ship with meters of thick armor. "Protect" doesn't mean immunity, though. Each hit will splash a sizable crater out of it, about 40% wide. Take it as a guideline. It will vary depending on the armor composition, one way or another, but still won't leave much for the ship interior itself, until absolutely absurd masses. Furthermore, a heavier or faster projectile will defeat the armor.

Good God this gets old after a while. To attain the velocities you desire, we need energy figures that go into shield territory. Also we have to then accept that no anti-HVI materials could ever be developed, that the systems Doc told me about earlier are infeasible, and that this ship is unable to move.

Guess what.

I'm not impressed.

If, at the end of the day I am entirely wrong (not conceding, sorry) you still haven't proved the viability of fighters, because the situation is entirely tailored around making fighters viable.

I can do the same thing though.

Shields, AoE weapons that make nukes look like damp match-heads, hellishly fast PD, energy densities that would make quasars blush. What happens? No more fighters, ever. Does that prove anything? No. It means I'm an asshole for trying to seem smart because I can create a situation that allows me to be the victor.

Have you done the exact same thing?

Why yes you have.

Have you proved that fighters are still useful in ANY FT environment?

Why no, no you haven't, which is what makes the entire situation really, really, really sad.


Now is it clear why modern spacecraft aren't protected with solid armor anymore, but rather compartmentalize, carry Whipple shields and try to outstretch them as far as possible? And they are only subjected to, practically, dust.

Because the armor protection we're talking about would mean these ships would be confined to the ground... forever? That couldn't be it though, could it.

Unless it's a direct hit.

And let's not even get started about an explosion at waterline or below.

See what 600kg of TNT does to a ship:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/Mark_48_Torpedo_testing.jpg

You don't have to affect the armor. Breaking apart is enough to disable a ship.

To be fair, that torpedo detonated under the keel and the shockwave in the water broke the keel, not the torpedo itself. The ship in question is also a destroyer escort, which was the precursor to the modern frigates. It may as well be a corvette for all that it's worth.

That's the thing. It was a bomb. A guided bomb, but still a bomb. Bombs hit the lightly armored decks and have gravity to help make sure that they aren't deflected.
The decks aren't as lightly armored as it may seem. For instance, Iowa has 7.5" deck armor and 12" belt.
Gravity isn't very important, it's about speed.


A missile on the other hand will usually hit horizontally and strike the belt or superstructure. Unfortunately, they simply won't penetrate the belt of any armored warship and don't have big enough payloads to do any damage should they detonate on the outside of the hull.
Well, let's compare Fritz X and Granit/Shipwreck.
Fritz: 1400kg, Mach 1
Granit: 7000kg launch, 3000kg terminal, Mach 2.5
That's whole lot more of energy. If equipped with a penetrating cap, just to keep the explosives intact (some fuel may be removed to make mass for extra payload), the missile will be well able to penetrate the belt. Yes, it's thicker, but, supposing we have 1400kg of cap+explosive, the 2.5 times higher speed (6 times the energy) well makes up for 1.6 times thicker armor.

That's not to mention that missiles also can top-attack to if they choose so.

Modern missiles aren't built to penetrate heavy armor just because there is none left, not because they can't.


That last bit also bodes especially ill for missiles against the hulls of hardened ships, since above the waterline and outside of the ship they're really going to behave like really, really shitty torpedoes but without the flooding.
A missile's payload is sometimes just a torpedo.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASROC

They are designed against submarines, because ships are easier to take out with missiles, but can attack a ship as well. Furthermore, a purpose-built anti-ship diving missile will be more effective. The airframe is just discarded when diving, leaving only the torpedo.

You mean like it manages not to do at the crossroads test?
Crossroads test was not a direct hit.


I'm some how less than impressed that WWII era ships might be torn in half and sink after a few days when a bomb has been detonated right under them, I'm afraid.
600kg of TNT eq. (300kg RDX). That's nowhere like 1,000,000kg of TNT eq.


Though how you achieve the same thing about the water line is beyond me unless we use yields that make the other side go "IT'S MAD TIME BABY!"
A direct hit will do it.

The difference between an airburst in over a hundred of meters and a direct hit is pretty much like between a bullet hitting the ceiling and hitting you directly.

Yes.
Even 1-tonne bombs dealt damage to battleships. 1000 tonnes would destroy any of them. Everything within the fireball is evaporated or liquefied, while the overpressure wave would smash the rest.

You mean like it manages not to do at the crossroads test? Funny (Arr, it wasn't direct! This does not somehow make these ships surviving two explosions that were within a mile radius somehow irrelevant).

Breaking in half is pretty much guaranteed. Ship's structure simply can't withstand this amount of energy. To better imagine, take a pencil, put it on a sofa and step on it with a shoe on.
Immediate sinking might be not achieved, but what remains would be just parts of the ship, floating due to compartmentalization, and quite possibly vertically. Though that would be more for NS-sized vessels rather than RL ones.

I'm some how less than impressed that WWII era ships might be torn in half and sink after a few days when a bomb has been detonated right under them, I'm afraid. Though how you achieve the same thing about the water line is beyond me unless we use yields that make the other side go "IT'S MAD TIME BABY!"

o rly? (http://www.historicenterprises.com/misc/matchlock2.jpg)

What else would I expect from you, Bryn :rolleyes:.

Lets just nevermind the part where the US carrier fleet completely flattened the Japanese navy because the Japanese aircraft and AA defenses were impotent and we had the ability to zerg rush. Or did you forget that we fielded the air wings of eleven (11) carriers against Yamato?

You mean where it was proven that airplanes > battleships? Nice way to prove my point there, genius.

Because there are so many modern armored warships, right?

Since so many modern ships have armor, why yes, yes there are.

Such as taking out electronics arrays, less armored secondary batteries, or cooking off any missiles or torpedoes that might happen to be anywhere near the deck? Just the destruction of the electronics would render most modern ships useless. The other two side effects would likely prove deadly.

Debatable depending upon yield. Lower yield weapons against armors meant to hold back radiation would not wreak as much havoc as believed. Against modern warships? You might have a problem, but probably only at higher yields when MAD becomes an issue. Though, since we'll never see tac-nukes used against wetships (unless terrorists get a hold of some or some of our favorite world dictators snap) designing such armor is not really a priority.

Unless it's a direct hit.

According to you, of course. This reminds me of the time Xess thought that being near a nuclear blast would cause damage to the human nervous systems because of the EMP. He had many nice calculations (that appeared to be correct, anyway) but a simple video showing men being perfectly fine (probably not afterwards) after a low-yield detonation proved him wrong. Do you even have any evidence at all that a 1kt nuclear blast would kill any warship at all beyond the crew? Or is it just your word again?

And let's not even get started about an explosion at waterline or below.

See what 600kg of TNT does to a ship:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/Mark_48_Torpedo_testing.jpg

You don't have to affect the armor. Breaking apart is enough to disable a ship.

Yes, let's not get on another tangent please where I am supposed to be impressed by your pointing out the stupidly obvious.

Crossroads test was not a direct hit.

So no damage was done at all, funny, that.

600kg of TNT eq. (300kg RDX). That's nowhere like 1,000,000kg of TNT eq.

Different mechanism usually means different results.

A direct hit will do it.

As said earlier, according to an unsupported you.

The difference between an airburst in over a hundred of meters and a direct hit is pretty much like between a bullet hitting the ceiling and hitting you directly.

Wow, way to commit a fallacy of analogy, and a blatantly obvious one at that. Because firing a bullet into the air, and a 21 kiloton explosion can be compared as far as effects go. Lovely.

Because firing a bullet into the air, and a 21 kiloton explosion can be compared as far as effects go.
As far as the bullet into the body is a direct nuclear hit, that's pretty much fair.


Do you even have any evidence at all that a 1kt nuclear blast would kill any warship at all beyond the crew?
Assuming it is a direct hit?
There were no direct hits for anecdotal evidence, but I can show you why it will if we can agree on:
1) Using experimental data of effects produced
2) Up/down-scaling when necessary using known laws.

The decks aren't as lightly armored as it may seem. For instance, Iowa has 7.5" deck armor and 12" belt.
Gravity isn't very important, it's about speed.

The belt is sloped and will deflect incoming shells. The deck isn't, and a bomb only has one direction to go. Down. The deck is working with ~90 degree angles. The belt isn't. Compared to the belt, the deck is practically cardboard.


Well, let's compare Fritz X and Granit/Shipwreck.
Fritz: 1400kg, Mach 1
Granit: 7000kg launch, 3000kg terminal, Mach 2.5
That's whole lot more of energy. If equipped with a penetrating cap, just to keep the explosives intact (some fuel may be removed to make mass for extra payload), the missile will be well able to penetrate the belt. Yes, it's thicker, but, supposing we have 1400kg of cap+explosive, the 2.5 times higher speed (6 times the energy) well makes up for 1.6 times thicker armor.
The missile isn't a dumb bomb with a guidance package strapped on. Bombs are designed to penetrate hard targets before detonating. Modern missiles aren't. While the Fritz or an AP shell will have the structural integrity to penetrate an armor plate, a missile or HE shell will not. Mass and velocity are not the only variables involved, and are far from the most important.


That's not to mention that missiles also can top-attack to if they choose so.
In which case they're going to be sacrificing most of their speed and become an easy target for CIWS or some smartass on the ship's .50.

Modern missiles aren't built to penetrate heavy armor just because there is none left, not because they can't.
Modern missiles aren't built to penetrate heavy armor because it would be prohibitively heavy and expensive to build missiles that actually brute force their way past a foot or more of specially hardened and stressed, sloped steel.


A missile's payload is sometimes just a torpedo.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASROC

They are designed against submarines, because ships are easier to take out with missiles, but can attack a ship as well. Furthermore, a purpose-built anti-ship diving missile will be more effective. The airframe is just discarded when diving, leaving only the torpedo.

ASROC != missile. If a ballistic Anti-Submarine ROCket is a missile, so is bottle rocket.

Bombs are designed to penetrate hard targets before detonating. Modern missiles aren't. While the Fritz or an AP shell will have the structural integrity to penetrate an armor plate, a missile or HE shell will not.
You don't need the entire missile to penetrate. Carrying a penetrator is enough. The penetrator will have the strength required.


Modern missiles aren't built to penetrate heavy armor because it would be prohibitively heavy and expensive to build missiles that actually brute force their way past a foot or more of specially hardened and stressed, sloped steel.
Just because there is no heavily armored ships except as floating museums. Therefore there's no need bothering about it.

Tanks' armor is stronger than naval, yet can be penetrated by ATGM.
Building a missile to penetrate armor involves just including the penetrator stage. Which can use either brute force or a shaped charge to do the job. Both approaches will work.
For simplicity, imagine an AP shell you consider sufficient to penetrate the belt. Missile can carry that shell and provide it with greater terminal velocity than the gun.
In reality it would be different. In NS designs, it's different already:
http://z13.invisionfree.com/The_NS_Draftroom/index.php?showtopic=3259


ASROC != missile. If a ballistic Anti-Submarine ROCket is a missile, so is bottle rocket.
It's not guided because the torpedo does the terminal stage guidance.
However, if you want to nitpick, here's another. A guided one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ikara_%28missile%29

What else would I expect from you, Bryn :rolleyes:.
Technically, that was cheating since the matchlock musket in question was .60 cal, but muskets ranged from .50 to .80 cal and the matchlock I linked was period for possible use against armored knights.


You mean where it was proven that airplanes > battleships? Nice way to prove my point there, genius.
All I proved was that eleven versus one is absurdly stacked. The US carrier fleet didn't defeat the Japanese, the US shipyards and factories did. Yes, carriers can be very deadly against enemy battleships, but battleships can defend themselves just as well. During WWII, a US fleet with battleships but no carriers or air cover managed to fend off days of Japanese air attacks without a single hit on any ship in the fleet.


Since so many modern ships have armor, why yes, yes there are.
Name one.


Debatable depending upon yield. Lower yield weapons against armors meant to hold back radiation would not wreak as much havoc as believed. Against modern warships? You might have a problem, but probably only at higher yields when MAD becomes an issue. Though, since we'll never see tac-nukes used against wetships (unless terrorists get a hold of some or some of our favorite world dictators snap) designing such armor is not really a priority.

Given that these were major issues against conventional weapons (Japanese destroyer captains were often left debating the option of ditching their torps when they came under fire rather than risk the oxygen powered torpedoes taking a hit.), the issue would naturally be even more pressing when dealing with atomic weapons. Against even a low yield nuke, you're likely going to be losing your dishes and antennas at best. In short, your mast is fucked if you're lucky, and your weapons are probably going to cook or misfire if you're not.

Y'know, the discussion here seems to be entirely irrelevent to the argument right now. Pretty calculations, yes, do prove that capships can be destroyed by fighters - but the issue is whether or not they can get in range or not.

If we're engaging, for some odd reason, at ranges of hundreds of kilometres, then every ship there is more-or-less doomed. Hypervelocity shells will tear things apart, and BAM, no more fleet. However, the issue at hand is not whether a fighter has enough firepower to destroy a capship - the difference between weapons and armor is even more marked as technology advances, it's true.

It's whether or not it can bring this firepower to bear. Now, let me give a hypothetical situation - as it seems to be the most likely one. If someone wants to amend it, fine, so long as you can support said amendments with good reasoning.

We have Ship A, with a mass of five. We have Ships B, C, D, E, and F, with a mass of one apiece. It's a simplified version of the fighter-capship dilemma, but since we're only looking at ratios, rather than exact calculations, it should be fine.

Assume that mass and volume of each ship is equivalent - in engines, weaponry, fuel, etcetera. Now, A enters combat with the fighter group B-F. Now, at this point we're equipped with missiles, hypervelocity projectiles, and lasers. Reasonable things to have.

Since A's mass is five times that of each of the other ships, we can assume that A's power output is five times greater than each of the fighters. Thus, from this, A has an effective longer range from its lasers - five times the power means, more-or-less, five times the effective range. Now, since acceleration and fuel are equal, then you're looking at A possessing the ability to keep pace with B-F, and continue firing at a longer range, whilst slowly destroying the enemy ships.

That's the issue at hand here. Whether it's hypervelocity projectiles, missiles, lasers or grasers, the larger ship will inevitably have a larger power output (assuming technology and the application of such to be of equal worth), and thus a larger range. It doesn't actually matter what the effective kill-range is, or the power required to kill such a ship - only that a larger ship, having more power to use, will have a larger kill-range, and thus be able to disable and destroy enemy ships before they can do the same to it.

In the same manner, a cruiser will beat a frigate, a dreadnought will beat a corvette, and a frigate will beat a fighter. Admittedly, smaller picket craft CAN be useful as sensor drones, or, on occasion, to extend the PD effectiveness of the capship in question.

The argument many seem to be putting forward is that a smaller craft will be harder to hit, and cheaper, and thus able to destroy larger craft with austerity due to the fact that a smaller number of them will die to destroy a capital ship. If the capital ship were calmly waiting stationary for the fighters to engage it, this may well be true. However, assuming equal engine and fuel ratios, and equal technology, the fighters will need to put extra engines on - thus reducing their effective kill-range due to the less power able to be used by the weapons, or put extra weapons on to increase their kill-range, and thus not be able to catch the enemy craft.

You don't need the entire missile to penetrate. Carrying a penetrator is enough. The penetrator will have the strength required.

Just because there is no heavily armored ships except as floating museums. Therefore there's no need bothering about it.

Tanks' armor is stronger than naval, yet can be penetrated by ATGM.
Building a missile to penetrate armor involves just including the penetrator stage. Which can use either brute force or a shaped charge to do the job. Both approaches will work.
For simplicity, imagine an AP shell you consider sufficient to penetrate the belt. Missile can carry that shell and provide it with greater terminal velocity than the gun.
In reality it would be different. In NS designs, it's different already:
http://z13.invisionfree.com/The_NS_Draftroom/index.php?showtopic=3259

I don't think you quite understand naval combat, let alone naval armor.

Using the Iowa's 16" shells as an example, weighed in at 2700lbs. Of that, only a few hundred pounds was explosives. The rest was the thick shell and AP cap. You can't weasel your way past armor this thick, you've got to brute force it, and you've got to have a projectile that can survive the forces involved with brute forcing through a foot of specially hardened, sloped steel intact. A dinky little penetrator isn't going to cut it.

Furthermore, you don't understand the difference between defeating a tank's armor and defeating a ship's. To defeat a tank's armor, you only need to kill the crew inside. If you do that with a jet of plasma from a shaped charge or with spalling inside the hull, the end result is the same. Against a ship, you have to get your projectile past the armor intact so it can detonate inside. Your little tiny hole that your shaped charge made isn't going to do anything more than piss off the person that has to paint the ship next.

In short, YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG.

I don't think you quite understand naval combat, let alone naval armor.
In fact, I do understand naval armor, as a side-effect of being a naval architect. No, we don't apply thick armors any more, but for a reason.

Using the Iowa's 16" shells as an example, weighed in at 2700lbs. Of that, only a few hundred pounds was explosives. The rest was the thick shell and AP cap. You can't weasel your way past armor this thick, you've got to brute force it, and you've got to have a projectile that can survive the forces involved with brute forcing through a foot of specially hardened, sloped steel intact. A dinky little penetrator isn't going to cut it.

You seem to underestimate missile payload capabilities.
What you call "dinky little penetrator" could actually be the same 2700lbs Iowa's shell.

While the immediate explosive payload of Granit is less, 1700lbs, it's more limited by size. Removing explosive casing alone would give over 2000lbs, and removing a small fraction of fuel and explosive would allow to fit that full-sized 2700lbs Iowa AP shell.
Delivered at Mach 2.5 as opposed to Mach 1.5-Mach 2 for artillery delivery.

That was one approach: a shell, but at higher velocity. BTW, shells are so thick because they have to withstand the barrel stresses. Once the penetrator is through, a larger load of explosives may follow, to increase damage times over a normal shell. But that isn't necessary: the missile can hit a vital spot.


Another approach is making a hole with shaped charge, which the rest will get through. Hundreds of pounds of shaped charge carried by an AShM (with hundreds of pounds of normal explosive to follow) are nowhere like the several pounds top ATGM payload. Even if shaped charge is used alone, experiments have shown such charges to penetrate 20m through a ship-type structure, enough to destroy whatever is needed.
Both work fine.

And you appear to misunderstand HVI, again. Because if thickness is irrelevant (it's not according to your same links) then a meteor impact on earht would pass straight through the planet onto the other side.
Thickness is relevant. But the thickness to protect against what you can be attacked with is so high that the ship will lose any sense.


Add some support that a 1ton projectile traveling at sane Hard FT speeds can penetrate 3 meters of hyper dense armor, taking into account form and shape and whatever structural niceties that are designed against HVIs?
The denser, the worse. Actual thickness decreases, but total weight increases. HVI are protected against by materials with as low average density as possible, which is achieved by spacing the plates in the Whipple shields.

I have, in the post you replied to, added support to why a 1-tonne proj. at 300km/s (or define the Hard FT speed, precisely, please) has the ability to penetrate more of depleted uranium, one of the densest materials.

You constantly try to tell me "you don't understand HVI", yet yourself seem to lack the understanding of such basic thing as radically different physics there, where there's no term "strength", only mass and velocity. Hyper dense? The denser, the thinner (for given mass), so the less energy is spent on it.


Also we have to then accept that no anti-HVI materials could ever be developed, that the systems Doc told me about earlier are infeasible, and that this ship is unable to move.
1 - Yes. There are no materials, as we know them, during high-HVI (which are more effective than low-HVI), only masses and densities. You can only protect with very spacious structures isolating the impact to damaged zone.
2 - Which? Doc is famous for unrealistic but stylish designs, but still I'm interested.
3 - No. But it's irrelevant - even forcing the ship to run away from KEP is enough of a tactical advantage.


Shields, AoE weapons that make nukes look like damp match-heads, hellishly fast PD, energy densities that would make quasars blush. What happens? No more fighters, ever. Does that prove anything? No. It means I'm an asshole for trying to seem smart because I can create a situation that allows me to be the victor.
Have you proved that fighters are still useful in ANY FT environment?
I have. I offered the situation where fighters, being deployed from multiple directions, can either force the enemy ship to move away, or will use combined velocity to deal heavy damage through KE projectiles. There, fighters are useful.

You created a different situation.
It took you: AoE weapons that make nukes look like damp match-heads, hellishly fast PD, energy densities that would make quasars blush.
It took me: Just the scientific data and simple facts.

You misread it. It was so:
(you) - "The ship can easily - in 'Hard' scenarios, no less - start shooting them at a hundred lightseconds out."
(me) - As well as other ships.
Here it says that if the ship can easily start shooting at fighters a hundred lightseconds away, it can start shooting other ships at the same range as well.... Then what is your point?

If "fire incoming at c" is the definition of Hard Sci-Fi, then I wonder at how many c will it go in soft.You saying that lasers are soft SciFi with no basis in reality?

But that isn't the point. Ships can't see it as well, then.But the fighters release kinetic projectiles going decidedly sub-c - the ships can very much see them coming and react...

You don't understand.

ONE projectile not intercepted and you're debris.

That's how it works.
Both for fighters and for capships.

You want to tell your defenses are 100.00% impenetrable?Well, apart fom this not holding true for the vast majority of NS SciFi (Once you're hitting tripledigit gee territory, your energy densities get so excessive the effect orbital mechanics have on kinetic projectiles becomes insignificant and armour once more works - well, sort of. I certainly can't withstand my own fire), the point's that a swarm of fighters releases less ordnance in a given timeframe than the ship does. They are intercepted more frequently, they have to satuate cubiclightseconds of space, they can't accelerate as hard as ordnance launched just as a missile can - their chances are rather poor. There's a reason for the c-weaponry you seem to consider 'Impossible' because laser sand particle beams are FILTHY COMMUNIST LIES or something to be popular - much shorter time on target, greater versatility. Kinetic projectiles suffer from, uh, the same problem RL torpedos suffer from - their velocity advantage over their targets is somewhat unimpressive.

Your fighters don't manage encircling because your opponent can move, and even if the ship doesn't have equal volume dedicated to engines, an acceleration advantage in excess of 50% (Which already requires more than twice the engine volume ratio) is, uh, not doable. Ever seen a bunch of motor boats with nukes trying to encircle a battlegroup group? This is what you're trying.

Which makes crossing the 'Killing Zone' in which they just get, well, killed withiout being able to do, uh, anything at all mildly difficult, particularly when the intial velocity of both combatants is already high.

Your fighters have difficulties coordinating their strike - this makes saturation of space - already difficult, due to the tousands-of-kilometres gaps - basically impossible.

And that's ignoring the little problem of you arguing about a level of hard SciFi that's effectively unknown in NS FT - think about it for a moment.

It's also ignoring that you're still not even recognising that nobody is saying that fighters are incapable of damaging a target when carrying proper ordnance. All that has been said is that they're pointless to use for this purpose, because the ordnance can damn well carry itself, thereby actually achiving increased endurance & delta v.

Lets see - you need the big ship. Even if you don't want to fight with it, you still need some way to project force, to move material, a base to operate from. A place where you're not cramped into a tiny cockpit with hardly any movement at all.

You do not need the fighter, because a guided missile does, in effect, have unlimited range in space. Your fighters are wastemass, because they reduce your overall firepower per ton, while doing nothing a missile cannot do on its own. The missile's role is diministed - because it no longer has an order-of-magnitude speed or acceleration advantage over its target, it becomes more closely related to naval torpedoes -, but the fighter - or light ordnance carrier, if you prefer - becomes useless for the purpose of attacking bigger things, as its role can be filled by the missile all on its own.

The fighter however, cannot fulfill the purposes of a larger ship, being unable to provide the space and resources needed for extended missions taking days, weeks, months.

Basically, you're ignoring the problem of 'How the hell do I get the fighters (Or missiles) to where I want them?', and this isn't helpful at all.

If they aren't, then let's suppose the ship has 99% of evading/intercepting fighter's attacks, the fighter has 50% chance of evading/intercepting ship's attacks. Don't forget the ship has to spread fire between all of them. Fair enough?

50% fighters will be hit, while only 1% of the fighters will hit the ship.

Now, guess yourself what does it mean with, say, 400 fighters?I'd start with the question... 400 fighters? On just one ship on your side? All of them attack the one ship of your opponent, which is already launching ordnance to deal with your carrier?

Sounds like a mutual 100% loss to me, with a slightly higher survival chance for me because I carry somewhat more ordnance and somewhat less PD drones (But keep them all with me, rather than sending them to do the job of a missile).

<Considerable snipping>Only a technicality, but a laser's range isn't really limited by its power output - it's limited by its wavelength (The shorter the better) & aperture size (The bigger the better). One certainly needs a given energy density on target in order to damage it, but at SciFi levels, reactor output/ m^3 tends to grow roughly on par with the ability of armour to withstand energy inflicted on it - as whatever you're using to survive and conduct the absurd energy densities present in the reactor will more-or-less automatically make pretty much the best armour you've available.

The big ship will thus have a longer range (Or, once an enemy comes close, a greater area of effect, if it uses dialable wavelength lasers. Given that these exist IRL, the answer is most likely 'Yes') because it can fit a more sizeable aperture - for the same reason, it can cover entire regions of space with fire.

You saying that lasers are soft SciFi with no basis in reality?
Lasers are Hard. But just call them lasers or beams, please.


Once you're hitting tripledigit gee territory, your energy densities get so excessive the effect orbital mechanics have on kinetic projectiles becomes insignificant and armour once more works - well, sort of. Ehr... Could you elaborate on how?


Kinetic projectiles suffer from, uh, the same problem RL torpedos suffer from - their velocity advantage over their targets is somewhat unimpressive.
Yes. But torpedos are still used IRL, because even that advantage does the job.
The problem with lasers is getting enough energy. Their consistent efficiency is extremely low (<1%), and most of the energy goes to the ship which fires the laser, in thermal form. Besides, a proper surface easily reflects most of the laser. Even simple silver will reflect over 97%, and a glass/polymer structure can reflect even more. They are used in fiber optics, losing almost nothing; a structure to dissipate laser is simpler. Only a very small fraction of laser can get through. Different structures are required for higher frequencies, but still they are way easier to produce than KE armor.

So the lasers can't just go away and blast all the fighters: if we suppose they have enough power to melt the fighter, with even, say, 2% efficiency and 95% reflection, then the ship will receive 1000 times more heat. That's OK, as long as the goal is to melt a single fighter. But if you want to melt hundreds of them, that's a major problem: you'll sooner melt yourself. Or not melt, but damage anyway.

Fighter/carrier mass ratio of 0.2 is well within reach for FT. The lasers simply can't be as efficient as to destroy a sizable fraction of the fighters without destroying the ship carrying them by heat released in the process.


Ever seen a bunch of motor boats with nukes trying to encircle a battlegroup group? This is what you're trying.
They could (well, take hydrofoils for better comparison). There's no point because real fighters and missiles just do it better.
However, a pack of submarines encircling a battlegroup? Not impossible.

Fighters, missiles - I don't care, the difference is marginal anyway.


Lets see - you need the big ship. Even if you don't want to fight with it, you still need some way to project force, to move material, a base to operate from. A place where you're not cramped into a tiny cockpit with hardly any movement at all.
Yes. But sometimes you might not want to send that ship in face of assured destruction (because space weapons are so powerful) and a safer, distributed local power projection can do it.

Your fighters are wastemass, because they reduce your overall firepower per ton, while doing nothing a missile cannot do on its own.
One of my points was that your firepower is already excessive. You don't need to be all up to your teeth in weapons to kill. You don't need two miniguns to kill a soldier in open field, a lightweight rifle is fine.
The world's modern most advanced air superiority fighter can carry just 900kg of missiles in combat configuration. It's more than enough for its missions.

A large spaceship can be destroyed by a relatively tiny munition. There's no point in having millions of them. You don't need huge arsenal ships to carry them. You already can carry tens of thousands times more than you really need. The main issue becomes to deliver them without getting one yourself.

That's just what happened to planes and even ships IRL: they no longer compete in payload, they compete in delivering it without getting a response.


Please, for a moment, pause to rethink the concept. You know I have no point convincing you. I don't play in FT anyway, I don't even plan to. I'm one of the strictest MT adherers. So it's just of academic interest for me.


For a long time, it was weapon against armor, but weapons consistently increased their advantage. The barrier was broken in the XX century, first with automation, then destroyed with nuclear weapons. It already happened: weapons are so powerful that they no longer compete in damage. Instead, they compete in first-kill ability. It's like with nuclear weapons. Who cares if you can destroy your enemy 10 times or 100? Both amounts are overkill.

The new problem is that your enemy also can.
Yes, you can hit head on, fleet on fleet, and he'll overkill you 100 times, you'll overkill him 1000 times. What's the difference? Both of you are destroyed. And that's what the space is like.

That's why you might want to deliver munitions without getting one yourself. Maybe less munitions. It's enough to kill once.


And the question is about not being killed in the process.

[ Oh, BTW, quad 40mm bofors are fine CIWS when you're packing as many as US ships did during WWII.

Actually, after the Phillippines campaign and Iwo Jima, the USN realized that the 20 mm had a marginal effect against Kamikazes, and the 40 mm wasn't doing enough. The response was a hurriedly designed 3 inch rapid fire gun (which after continued improvements is still in service today). Proximity fused ammunition from 5 inch turrets was far more effective.

Now when the Japanese used manned aircraft in conventional attacks (best examples Phillippine Sea and Halseys raids against Taiwan) the lighter guns were very effective. You can consider a Kamikaze to be essentially a manned missle.

The Japanese had less capable AA, which is why US aircraft losses were much lower when attacking their fleet. In effect, the Americans were a generation ahead of the Japanese in fleet defense.


This of course weakens the argument for fighters as applies to FT if you use the above analogy.

Until you look at the adaptation the US made in the 1960s on. A US air strike against a fleet would start with anti radar missiles to blind the defenders, extensive jamming to reduce the remaining defenses, stand off anti ship missiles to take out the more effective AA ships, and then dumb and guided bombs against the more important targets. Usually in a series of strikes.

The Russians went for a different approach. Big bombers armed with really big missiles supported by jamming aircraft would attack the task force, hoping to eliminate the carrier in one go as the defending fighters would likely shoot down so many bombers that a second attack would be difficult at best to pull off.

Neither approach was actually ever used, so its speculative as to who was right. The US did however use a variant of there tactics to essentially eliminate the Iraqi air defenses as a coordinated system during the 1st Gulf War and the one we are in now. Israel did the same against Syria in 1982 during the War in Lebanon.

As we have no other models to look at historically, thats what most people think a fighter versus capital ship duel would look like in future tech.

The anti fighter side would argue that as capital ships are capable of as much speed as a fighter and have much greater defensive and offensive strength the fighter is obsolete against them.

The pro fighter side argues that fighters are cheaper, so therefore, you can buy a lot more attack platforms, enabling you to ultimately have a lot more missiles to use in the decisive portion of a stand off missile attack.

The anti fighter side says you have to count the carriers, which they think would cost nearly as much as a capital ship and be less capaboel

The pro fighter side says that carriers are a lot cheaper then capital ships, and also have the advantage of never having to get within range of those capital ships has it carries all of those fighters which can launch stand off attacks.

The anti fighter side says that the fighters won't be able to launch a successful attack, the pro fighter sides disagrees.

Apparently what has been conceeded to at least some extent by the anti fighter side is that fighters are useful for other missions in future tech, which include strike missions against weakly defended targets, scouting (although they argue drones are more cost effective and fighters aren't needed for this) and a few other missions.

The pro fighter side believes that fighters are very useful for ground support, strike missions, scouting, show the flag missions and a lot of other missions that the anti fighter side believes could be handled by major warships or drones instead.

It probably all comes down to the reliability of any AI you are using for your drones and missiles, distances such vehicles can operate from their fleet, communications distances (as even a laser type comm system is restricted to the speed of light so unless you have some kind of comm system that uses hyperspace or whatever you wish to call it, that is an important issue).

The profighter side also believes that size does not a fighter make. Just because the current fighters are relatively small compared to what a likely capital ship would look like doesn't mean that FT fighters would have to be that size.

As the World War I Fokker DVII would fit comfortably on the wing of an F22 or F15, they may have a point.

I don't actually remember citing anything. I remember lampooning um... every point you've tried to make here by pointing out that fallacy != well supported argument. .

So in essence you are admitting you are too intellectually lazy and too lacking in manners to debate with respect.

Our side has proved that missiles are indeed more likely to destroy a capital ship, and that large numbers of platforms (in this case fighters) are likely to carry out a sufficiently strong enought attack to overwhelm an unsupported capital ship force.

Your side claim that in the model you are using, AI makes fighters unnecessary. Our side claims first that there are other models and secondly, even in your model fighters are too useful for supporting missions to be obsolete.


Only if my premise was that fighters are entirely, totally, one-hundred percent useless in FT, which it's not. You don't read much do you?.

In formal debate, this would be an issue of topicality, and in this case, you are off topic as the premise is that fighters are obsolete period in FT. Our side says that this isn't so, your side says that they are indeed obsolete. If you agree that fighters have useful missions, then they aren't obsolete in FT.

Statements like the one above merely make you look obnoxious instead of intelligent. As your side has made a point to be obnoxious since the debate began it is indeed clearly your style.

Incidently, one of the links you were too lazy to read stated that the US Navy added nearly 1000 tons displacement to Spruance class DDGs by adding kevlar armor to harden CIC, the bridge and other vital areas against the fragments caused by missile hits. Not steel, kevlar. Other sources indicate that the followup class, the Arleigh Burkes, were built that way and again used kevlar instead of steel.

unknown[/i] in NS FT - think about it for a moment.

It's also ignoring that you're still not even recognising that nobody is saying that fighters are incapable of damaging a target when carrying proper ordnance. All that has been said is that they're pointless to use for this purpose, because the ordnance can damn well carry itself, thereby actually achiving increased endurance & delta v.

Lets see - you need the big ship. Even if you don't want to fight with it, you still need some way to project force, to move material, a base to operate from. A place where you're not cramped into a tiny cockpit with hardly any movement at all.

You do not need the fighter, because a guided missile does, in effect, have unlimited range in space. Your fighters are wastemass, because they reduce your overall firepower per ton, while doing nothing a missile cannot do on its own. The missile's role is diministed - because it no longer has an order-of-magnitude speed or acceleration advantage over its target, it becomes more closely related to naval torpedoes -, but the fighter - or light ordnance carrier, if you prefer - becomes useless for the purpose of attacking bigger things, as its role can be filled by the missile all on its own.

The fighter however, cannot fulfill the purposes of a larger ship, being unable to provide the space and resources needed for extended missions taking days, weeks, months.

Basically, you're ignoring the problem of 'How the hell do I get the fighters (Or missiles) to where I want them?', and this isn't helpful at all.

.

Those are indeed good points.

However, after a certain point, a missile will to move so much faster then a target ship that it can't get out of the way no matter the evasive action it would be likely to take (and the other defense measures it has). If you have missiles like that, then the risks of a hit are so dangerous as to make capital ships obsolete because you have too many eggs in one basket (as a percentage of your fleet) to lose one. Better to have lots of smaller ships so you can afford to lose some and continue the mission in this case.

The other type of missile is one that can maneuver with the target. However, missiles are going to be smaller then a spacecraft (that is the point after all) or be so costly as to be obsolete themselves. They can only carry so much payload, fuel and control capability in that missile. So a small attack craft like a fighter that can carry a number of missiles to a stand off range that reduces the reaction time of the enemy fleet has a purpose and useful mission. The advantage small manned attack craft have is unlike a bus like system, they remain under positive human control (and response) longer then a bus that must be fire and forget (which adds to the missile cost to where fighters might become attractive), preprogrammed to have certain parameters (which removes flexibility) or controlled by remote. As distances are huge in space, and unless you have comm system that is FTL, then remember a light minute is a LONG time for communications lag and those light minutes and seconds add up quickly.

If you don't believe missiles will work at all, and only heavy ship mounted kinetic energy and beam weapons are likely to affect a target, then yes, fighters aren't the first thing you use against such ships. But they would be very useful in killing cripples, as well as all the other missions you don't want to either risk capital ships doing, or don't have enough capital ships to do because of economy of force requirements.


As to carrying mission length. There are two major possibilities. One is of course the traditional carrier which in most cases would stay well out of range of the opposing fleet and use its fighters to attack with. Such a carrier doesn't have to carry a heavy anti ship weapons load, nor does it need armor, which cuts its cost significantly compared to a capital ship.

The other answer is longer ranged fighters that sacrifice part of their lightness for some short term habitablity. This of course makes them more like missile boats (in modern terms) then fighters, or maritime patrol aircraft. However, they would still be capable of doing most of the missions lighter fighters do at a still considerably reduced cost compared to a capital ship while being better armed then a patrol ship.

Actually, after the Phillippines campaign and Iwo Jima, the USN realized that the 20 mm had a marginal effect against Kamikazes, and the 40 mm wasn't doing enough. The response was a hurriedly designed 3 inch rapid fire gun (which after continued improvements is still in service today). Proximity fused ammunition from 5 inch turrets was far more effective.

Now when the Japanese used manned aircraft in conventional attacks (best examples Phillippine Sea and Halseys raids against Taiwan) the lighter guns were very effective. You can consider a Kamikaze to be essentially a manned missle.

The thing there is that a kamikaze aircraft is generally far less volatile than a missile would be, and has far more mass. A Zero weighed in at a bit over two and a half tons, while a Harpoon weighs in at about half a ton and a Tomahawk clocks in at a ton and a half. The missiles are also packing rocket or jet fuel, and have a much larger area packed with explosives. That makes it naturally much easier to take out a missile than a kamikaze with a 40mm.

Granit is 7000kg, Brahmos is 3000kg. And still they have smaller surface area than fighters. It already makes them harder to hit than a kamikaze fighter.

Both are high supersonic and can maneuver. At close range (a couple miles) you can damage it, destroy the engine, et cetera, but it won't mean much, since the missile has impulse exceeding even the heaviest naval artillery shells. It's not a slow moving WWII aircraft; it's a low-altitude high supersonic jet, faster than a bullet. It will fly on. All the shot will do is making the missile miss a vital spot; but not miss the ship.
Stable explosives used also help - they don't go off easily.


The current anti-missile developments for Zumwalt aim at 90% survival chance against a single conventional (Harpoon, Tomahawk) or 75% against high-threat (Brahmos, Granit) missile. That's for ship's complete anti-missile defenses, against each missile. Mostly they rely on SAM rather than CIWS; though the new CIWS is missile-based as well.

Granit is 7000kg, Brahmos is 3000kg. And still they have smaller surface area than fighters. It already makes them harder to hit than a kamikaze fighter.

Both are high supersonic and can maneuver. At close range (a couple miles) you can damage it, destroy the engine, et cetera, but it won't mean much, since the missile has impulse exceeding even the heaviest naval artillery shells. It's not a slow moving WWII aircraft; it's a low-altitude high supersonic jet, faster than a bullet. It will fly on. All the shot will do is making the missile miss a vital spot; but not miss the ship.
Stable explosives used also help - they don't go off easily.


The current anti-missile developments for Zumwalt aim at 90% survival chance against a single conventional (Harpoon, Tomahawk) or 75% against high-threat (Brahmos, Granit) missile. That's for ship's complete anti-missile defenses, against each missile. Mostly they rely on SAM rather than CIWS; though the new CIWS is missile-based as well.
Congratulations, you somehow managed to completely miss the entire point.

Congratulations, you somehow managed to completely miss the entire point.

I had a complicated answer for you too until I realized we are off topic on this

So in essence you are admitting you are too intellectually lazy and too lacking in manners to debate with respect.

Er, no. It means I don't need any resources to annihilate everything you manage to say, because their integrity is less than a house of cards in the path of a tornado.

Our side has proved that missiles are indeed more likely to destroy a capital ship, and that large numbers of platforms (in this case fighters) are likely to carry out a sufficiently strong enought attack to overwhelm an unsupported capital ship force.

Why do you keep saying things that are untrue? Could it be that you don't know what you're talking about? Why yes, yes it is.

'Our side' has proven that Fighters are obsolete in their traditional roles. And that capships can also own fighters with the same sort of ease that a machine gunner could an army of pissed off peasants armed with only pitchforks. What exactly has 'your side' done other than build arguments on fallacy while also not bothering to read anything that is ever posted here? Oh wait, nothing.

Your side claim that in the model you are using, AI makes fighters unnecessary. Our side claims first that there are other models and secondly, even in your model fighters are too useful for supporting missions to be obsolete.

We're saying that FT technology makes using fighters for capship killing a dumb idea. Our model doesn't do support missions unless you're speaking of those that DA previously described, which did not entail trying to kill capships. Someone doesn't know how to read...

In formal debate, this would be an issue of topicality, and in this case, you are off topic as the premise is that fighters are obsolete period in FT. Our side says that this isn't so, your side says that they are indeed obsolete. If you agree that fighters have useful missions, then they aren't obsolete in FT.

In formal debate the topic can be argued by both sides without the advantage falling with one side (Good to know you've no idea how formal debate works, either). 'Our side' says their traditional role is obsolete (how many times do I need to repeat this for it to stick?), 'your side' disagrees. Your side is also very much wrong (as pointed out so many times that it probably borders on spam) and would very much lose if this was formal debate (you do even if it wasn't) because the premise regards their traditional roles.

Statements like the one above merely make you look obnoxious instead of intelligent. As your side has made a point to be obnoxious since the debate began it is indeed clearly your style.

Clearly 'our side' knows how to read and make well supported arguments. What does that mean your side can do? Appear intelligent because you can support a statement with more fallacies than normal human beings? If only such a world existed; sadly, it doesn't.

Incidently, one of the links you were too lazy to read stated that the US Navy added nearly 1000 tons displacement to Spruance class DDGs by adding kevlar armor to harden CIC, the bridge and other vital areas against the fragments caused by missile hits. Not steel, kevlar. Other sources indicate that the followup class, the Arleigh Burkes, were built that way and again used kevlar instead of steel.

... Wow. Because I totally said that there was no Kevlar on modern day battleships to prevent that sort of damage. Your statement: Modern ships are kevlar based (would love to see one of those things float). My statement: You're wrong. See the difference?

Sadly, you've bored me. At first it was hilarious, then it was just funny, then only the word 'meah' can describe it, now it's just tedious. If you can't read, I won't teach you. If you can't argue, then I'm not going to show you how. They have schools for a reason. And noting the above, thank God that Jolt has certain features that make unwanted blocks of text disappear as they are posted.

Er, no. It means I don't need any resources to annihilate everything you manage to say, because their integrity is less than a house of cards in the path of a tornado. Why do you keep saying things that are untrue? Could it be that you don't know what you're talking about? Why yes, yes it is .

In other words, you are too lazy to rebutt them and aren't really serious. You are just being a troll.



'Our side' has proven that Fighters are obsolete in their traditional roles. And that capships can also own fighters with the same sort of ease that a machine gunner could an army of pissed off peasants armed with only pitchforks. What exactly has 'your side' done other than build arguments on fallacy while also not bothering to read anything that is ever posted here? Oh wait, nothing. .

I have read every post... can you say the same? Nor do we accept your assertion that fighters are obsolete in their traditional roles, of which only one is dealing with enemy capital ships.



We're saying that FT technology makes using fighters for capship killing a dumb idea. Our model doesn't do support missions unless you're speaking of those that DA previously described, which did not entail trying to kill capships. Someone doesn't know how to read....

As has been repeatedly stated, your model isn't the only one and in any case, can't be proven, nor can ours. We at least have historical experience to support us.



In formal debate the topic can be argued by both sides without the advantage falling with one side (Good to know you've no idea how formal debate works, either). 'Our side' says their traditional role is obsolete (how many times do I need to repeat this for it to stick?), 'your side' disagrees. Your side is also very much wrong (as pointed out so many times that it probably borders on spam) and would very much lose if this was formal debate (you do even if it wasn't) because the premise regards their traditional roles. .

I judge debate for High Schools following National Forensic League Standards.. all of which you are abusing. The right or wrong of the arguement is what the debate is about. Not how abusive and snotty you can be.



Clearly 'our side' knows how to read and make well supported arguments. What does that mean your side can do? Appear intelligent because you can support a statement with more fallacies than normal human beings? If only such a world existed; sadly, it doesn't.

Sadly, you've bored me. At first it was hilarious, then it was just funny, then only the word 'meah' can describe it, now it's just tedious. If you can't read, I won't teach you. If you can't argue, then I'm not going to show you how. They have schools for a reason. And noting the above, thank God that Jolt has certain features that make unwanted blocks of text disappear as they are posted.

In other words, you can't rebutt me so are going to pretend you win.. works for me. I find it amusing that you are going away.

... Wow. Because I totally said that there was no Kevlar on modern day battleships to prevent that sort of damage. Your statement: Modern ships are kevlar based (would love to see one of those things float). My statement: You're wrong. See the difference?.

Actually I said that modern warships don't use steel armor anymore, not that they aren't constructed of steel. Most in fact are built of a combination of steel, aluminum and various light weight materials (a variety of them). In fact, very few warships of any decade were every built entirely armored. Generally only portions (percentages vary) of the ship had armored protection of varying thickness. After World War II until the 1980s none had any armor included in their design or construction either. Only when lightweight alternatives like kevlar showed up was armor reintroduced when it became apparent some armor was necessary for protecting critical portions of the ship.

The Soviets never put in any at all for their surface ships after the initial postwar Stalin era because they didn't figure their ships would last long enough to make it worthwhile.

All of this of course, indicates that your reading comprehension needs work.

This isn't a debate anyways, but a discussion.

Electron X and Vault 10 the issue that I seem to have been misquoted on is the bulky nature of whipple shields versus the usually necessary compact form of "fighter" craft construction and the general fallacy of armouring craft of whom generally there ability to change velocity is there primary value. Further I find the use of Whipple shields without exotic FT materials to be unlikely to be of any use against warships who have been accelerating for any amount of time with the not "hyper velocity" but C fractional velocities involved. Quite frankly the vast differences in kinetic energy should invalidate the use of conventional Whipple layout.

The main issue I have with this thread is the definition of "fighter" and survivability of said items not to mention the fast differences in perceived FT tech bases. Many of the arguments so far presented fail when put up against the simple use of unpleasant high energy density and technological disparities between combatants or styles of capital vessel.

For instance in many cases in the NS sol theatre the heavy use of gravitic drives would render most "fighter" craft of the scale of today's quite useless against capital ships at meaningful range with dumb hyper velocity projectiles and smaller fighter carried missiles with drives wholly too small or far too low lethality to avoid being overpowered by the capital vessels gravitics and requiring the fighter to dare to enter the capital vessels engagement range to enter a munition shepard role. In many tech bases the capital mounted CREWs with wide angle and high intensity have ample traverse capacity (and with capital scale sensors to guide them) will not have a problem dispatching small craft with power/mass ratios lower than the ASMs the weapons mounts will have to be designed with in mind. The fighter sized combatants are still useful as remote launch or lob platforms but for effectively assaulting in this tech base they are rendered quite useless without numbers that make it quite non cost effective given larger hulls larger reactors should be capable of exponentially greater reactor output.

Then there is the classic space opera base where manned star fighters make there appearance where there fire-power is for some deus ex machina quite enough to do there job. As much as we may criticise and point out the logical issues of reactor mass and traverse capabilities of even heavy weapons and the dire performance issues of the manned support cost the drama still cant be denied and so I cannot see there death in roleplay. We may feel it necessary to view such manned monstrosities as the produce of some neo barb cult of the fighter pilot but in the end the drama and soft sci fi will continue to use them and further demand that others respect there given destructive values (within of course the agreed RP). But what those users must see is that there use sickens the more technical player in that these soft sci fi vessels must have power to mass values and lethality to mass values far in superiority to there own to be effective combatants. This to those who do put extensive work into there fighter craft or general tech base is more than a little aggravating and indeed can be blamed for many of the arguments put forth in this very thread.


Is it to be a system capable parasite vessel Webber LAC sized carrying singular heavy capital weapons? and even then that only works with sensory / stealth disparity against longer ranged repeating capital weapons mounts. Is it to be a mission alterable combat aerobot/PD drone/ missile shepard? Or is it to be the classic starfighter with all the FTL, bells and whistles?

The constant fight between rational logical design versus drama seems to be the primary failure point of this discussion, never mind its continual sliding into methods of attack or the lethality of the carried weapon systems.

Again what of relative velocities and vectors? You have discussed them but seemingly jumped around the point of stamina ..

Should fighters be able to ever catch up or intercept with far larger capital vessels with far greater specific impulse capability? should specific impulse time be even taken into account? Do we take capital vessel reactor volumes to be exponentially more capable? Are the capital vessels ultra dense vast mounds of armour capable of mocking multi megaton contact detonations or huge drive stacks whos relative velocities make the thought of any parasite craft engaging them in there cone of kinetic attack suicidal? Are all of the above true all the time in the vast and varied perceived tech bases of NS?

And that is the problem right there, they are all true for some people some time and while the hard science warfare of say light hugging ramships with the task of relativistic deterent hurling cones of ultra dense slugs at planets light years ahead of there projected course when they reach there turn over points can make great RP ..it would make "fighter craft" an almost complete irrelevancy outside direct assault of semi static targets.

Conversely while such vessels have vast destructive power even in soft FT against a soft FT warship riding along on its stardrive and hurling out white hot death rays you end up with an oiee situation.

In the end I think most people would agree that capital ships sustained specific impulse should be vastly greater than the vast majority of parasite craft save missiles could ever hope to attain. With any amount of time to accelerate and given there vastly more capable sensor capacity capital vessels should given parity of drive to mass ratio be quite capable of successfully dodging fighter deployments or simply be on an attack vector with a kinetic kill value so high that no fighter craft would risk the hellstorm of sand casters that could be unleashed. Of course then the carrier is put forth. But in FT for the technical player to waste mass and lethality in a dispersed fashion in sub craft in such a vessel for anything other than the littoral assault role seems more than a little foolish.

And then finally there is the capital vessel FTL issue, or worse with translocation or tesseract or "jump drives" which render non FTL or jump fighter deployments at anything but knifefight range almost utterly useless against targets capable of it and worse still the relative energy level stamina of a starships numbers of jumps versus a fighters.

There are simply too many variables of used technology for the relative use of "fighters" to be analysed in depth with any level of usefulness in discussion. Its very much the old star wars versus star treck nonsense the apples and oranges with each player setting there own technological goal posts and lethality and survivability issues. It is endemic to nationstates future tech roleplay and to a lesser extend post modern tech and unfortunately given present gameing conventions quite inescapable.

In the end this thread could be construed to be while a possibly useful discussion for comparative technology an utterly useless forum for its stated purpose given the spurious nature of trying to analyse the use of non defined "fightercraft" given that for each individual player or playing style this is vastly different.

Further the degeneration of the arguments to even a personal level with biased models given to back up points that are given the general framework of the entire NSverse entirely spurious is a most sickening development.

Post Script

I do myself have a multi role long range combat drone class which could fall into the role or at least what I consider the niche that starfighters seem to. They are rarely deployed outside planetary or close planetary environments they can in networked array manage to stagger up short FTL interplanetary slides... however there primary purpose is NEVER to attack capital vessels but as light system/ orbital patrol and munitions shepards and armed fast recy platforms.

As a guideline they tend to come in at 1500 to 3000 odd metric tons and are powered by artificially enhanced matter transmutation/decay reactors fuelled by some form of high density degenerate matter, usually metallic hydrogen. In there most high yield direct weapon form tend to be armed with two fixed mount multi purpose grav drivers. I do borrow the term hellbore for such devices.

*Watches and laughs*

You people make me laugh. You come to nothing over a pointless debate, congrats! Even though I side with Vault 10.

Still pointless.

Why do people automaticly assume 'fleet combat' and small fighters?

Let the big boys play with their toys while the little things go find things.

Like comparing a scout/sniper team to a tank platoon...

----------

Both are useful in land combat, but a sniper is generally no match for a tank, even if he does carry an AMR, or even an ATGM when going against a platoon of tanks...

If you want to stay within the confines of tracked transportation, light tanks/tankets for finding big tanks, while the big tanks deal with each other and then own the little tanks when they win.

The military has always needed a screen of cannon fodder, er, scouts...

--------

Using a massive Super dread for peacetime patrols and law enforcement is overkill.

Most 'Empires' use overkill only to make examples of bothersome repeat offenders. And one can assume, that they generally don't send massive forces everywhere they go.