History Analysis / SpaceFighter

6th Jun '16 2:50:15 PM ScorpiusOB1
Is there an issue? Send a Message



to:

Another issue related to B8 is acceleration. InertialDampeners aside, a small space fighter may be able to reach a higher acceleration than, say, a capital ship but the former having small fuel reserves will stuck at a certain velocity (you'd better save fuel to brake in both cases), while the larger ship even if it had a far worse acceleration could maintain it for a longer time as it has far more fuel, eventually overtaking the fighter.
20th Jan '16 4:00:30 AM GentlemensDame883
Is there an issue? Send a Message


As for the cloud thing, you don't need fighters to overcome. You can send recon drones or infantry spotters. If defences are so strong that even those can't get through, you should still be working on orbital superiority rather than bombing.

Anything you need to capture intact, or is placed somewhere you can't bombard from air or orbit ''a la'' Literature/TheGunsOfNavarone, you should be sending in the {{Space Marine}}s anyway.

to:

As for the cloud thing, you don't need fighters to overcome. You can send recon drones or infantry spotters. If defences are so strong that even those can't get through, you should still be working on orbital superiority and destroying orbit-to-surface defences rather than bombing.

whatever else you need more precise aiming for.

Anything you need to capture intact, or is placed somewhere you can't bombard from air or orbit ''a la'' Literature/TheGunsOfNavarone, you should be sending in the {{Space Marine}}s anyway.
anyway. Precision guided munitions can only be so precise after all, so if it's something that precious, you should be using boots on the ground, not fire support.
4th Jan '16 2:58:22 PM GentlemensDame883
Is there an issue? Send a Message


By simple physics, a small fighter just can't carry as much fuel and ammo as a larger warship. And unlike naval gun fire support, where targets can be far enough inland that a fighter can reach but a ship's guns cannot, almost everything planetside can be hit with the right orbit. Maybe for some reason you can't or don't want to dedicate an all-up battleship to fire support, but some kind of corvette or gunboat equivalent would still be able to remain on station longer than a fighter squadron.

to:

By simple physics, a small fighter just can't carry as much fuel and ammo as a larger warship. And unlike naval gun fire support, where targets can be far enough inland that a fighter can reach but a ship's guns cannot, almost everything planetside can be hit with the right orbit. Maybe for some reason you can't or don't want to dedicate an all-up battleship to fire support, but some kind of corvette or gunboat equivalent would still be able to remain on station longer than a fighter squadron.
squadron, which would have to more frequently return to the safely-distant carrier for refuelling and rearming.

As for the cloud thing, you don't need fighters to overcome. You can send recon drones or infantry spotters. If defences are so strong that even those can't get through, you should still be working on orbital superiority rather than bombing.



Yes, you can refuel a fighter. But what about its ammo? Unless it's purely armed with energy weapons and unguided, non self-propelled cannon, the MobileFactory converting {{Asteroid Mine|rs}}d resources into munitions will also need to produce complicated electronics for drives and sensors. And from there it's a stone's throw to producing missiles.

to:

Yes, you can refuel a fighter. But what about its ammo? Unless it's purely armed with energy weapons and unguided, non self-propelled cannon, the MobileFactory converting {{Asteroid Mine|rs}}d resources into munitions will also need to produce complicated electronics for drives drives/engines and sensors. And from there it's a stone's throw to producing missiles.
31st Dec '15 2:30:21 AM GentlemensDame883
Is there an issue? Send a Message


By simple physics, a small fighter just can't carry as much fuel and ammo as a larger warship. And unlike naval gun fire support, where targets can be far enough inland that a fighter can reach but a ship's guns cannot, almost everything planetside can be hit with the right orbit. Maybe for some reason you don't want to dedicate an all-up battleship to fire support, but some kind of corvette or gunboat equivalent would still be able to remain on station longer than a fighter squadron.

to:

By simple physics, a small fighter just can't carry as much fuel and ammo as a larger warship. And unlike naval gun fire support, where targets can be far enough inland that a fighter can reach but a ship's guns cannot, almost everything planetside can be hit with the right orbit. Maybe for some reason you can't or don't want to dedicate an all-up battleship to fire support, but some kind of corvette or gunboat equivalent would still be able to remain on station longer than a fighter squadron.



!!B12. A13 is not actually an argument for or against fighters, merely against missiles

to:

!!B12. A13 is not actually an argument for or against fighters, merely against missilesmissiles. And not a very strong one either.
Yes, you can refuel a fighter. But what about its ammo? Unless it's purely armed with energy weapons and unguided, non self-propelled cannon, the MobileFactory converting {{Asteroid Mine|rs}}d resources into munitions will also need to produce complicated electronics for drives and sensors. And from there it's a stone's throw to producing missiles.

Back on topic, if said MobileFactory can produce fuel and ammo for fighters, it would merely be a matter of scaling up to produce supplies for larger warships too. Unless, of course, there are arbitrary restrictions on this.
31st Dec '15 2:00:58 AM GentlemensDame883
Is there an issue? Send a Message
31st Dec '15 1:59:14 AM GentlemensDame883
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:


!!B11. Exactly because there are planets and celestials.
All the so-called weaknesses mentioned in A7 and A12 apply equally to fighters. If a missile can't do the acrobatics needed for close quarter combat in an AsteroidThicket, neither will it be possible with a larger, less agile fighter unless there is blatant PlotArmor. And complaining about the speed of a larger warship while playing up an even faster fighter is silly.

By simple physics, a small fighter just can't carry as much fuel and ammo as a larger warship. And unlike naval gun fire support, where targets can be far enough inland that a fighter can reach but a ship's guns cannot, almost everything planetside can be hit with the right orbit. Maybe for some reason you don't want to dedicate an all-up battleship to fire support, but some kind of corvette or gunboat equivalent would still be able to remain on station longer than a fighter squadron.

Anything you need to capture intact, or is placed somewhere you can't bombard from air or orbit ''a la'' Literature/TheGunsOfNavarone, you should be sending in the {{Space Marine}}s anyway.

!!B12. A13 is not actually an argument for or against fighters, merely against missiles
28th Dec '15 3:01:59 PM GentlemensDame883
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Approaching A9 from the other side, depending on how the technology pans out, the different roles a spacecraft's crew has to handle may get more complex, such that the traditional fighter's pilot-weapon systems officer two-man crew may no longer be adequate and larger crews are needed. In such a situation, crew complements could balloon to the point where they more closely resemble fast attack craft or patrol boats'. As such, although they might still technically count as "fighters" by virtue of being short-legged and reliant on carriers for operating away from friendly ports, their doctrine would necessarily differ from traditional fighters'. Once again, see the Honorverse's light attack craft for an existing example.

to:

Approaching A9 from the other side, depending on how the technology pans out, the different roles a spacecraft's crew has to handle may get more complex, such that the traditional fighter's pilot-weapon systems officer two-man crew may no longer be adequate and larger crews are needed. For example, sensors could get more advanced and complex without data-analysis AI or software keeping up, resulting in the need to spin off a dedicated sensor officer to keep track of what's going on in the fight. In such a situation, crew complements could balloon to the point where they more closely resemble fast attack craft or patrol boats'. As such, although they might still technically count as "fighters" by virtue of being short-legged and reliant on carriers for operating away from friendly ports, their doctrine would necessarily differ from traditional fighters'. Once again, see the Honorverse's light attack craft for an existing example.
12th Dec '15 11:27:28 PM GentlemensDame883
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Approaching A9 from the other side, depending on how the technology pans out, the different roles a spacecraft's crew has to handle may get more complex, such that the traditional fighter's pilot-weapon systems officer two-man crew may no longer be adequate and larger crews are needed. In such a situation, crew complements could balloon to the point where they more closely resemble fast attack craft or patrol boats'. As such, although they might still technically count as "fighters" by virtue of being short-legged and reliant on carriers for operating away from friendly ports, their doctrine would necessarily differ from traditional fighters'.

to:

Approaching A9 from the other side, depending on how the technology pans out, the different roles a spacecraft's crew has to handle may get more complex, such that the traditional fighter's pilot-weapon systems officer two-man crew may no longer be adequate and larger crews are needed. In such a situation, crew complements could balloon to the point where they more closely resemble fast attack craft or patrol boats'. As such, although they might still technically count as "fighters" by virtue of being short-legged and reliant on carriers for operating away from friendly ports, their doctrine would necessarily differ from traditional fighters'. Once again, see the Honorverse's light attack craft for an existing example.
12th Dec '15 11:24:50 PM GentlemensDame883
Is there an issue? Send a Message


A sufficiently powerful and focused energy weapon travels at ''c'' while mass accelerators can propel projectiles at a signficant fraction thereof. Coupled with powerful sensors, space combat in this setting will be closer to submarine combat rather than surface navy engagements. Weapons strike at enemy capital ships light seconds away as predictive algorithms try to lead an enemy into a successful shot. The time taken to deploy strikecraft under such circumstances would render them moot, most engagements are settled in seconds by powerful capital ship grade weapons, and more importantly, computers and sensors. If the strikecraft require telemetry from their carrier to tell them where to fire, it is probably too late to hit anything.

to:

A sufficiently powerful and focused energy weapon travels at ''c'' while mass accelerators can propel projectiles at a signficant significant fraction thereof. Coupled with powerful sensors, space combat in this setting will be closer to submarine combat rather than surface navy engagements. Weapons strike at enemy capital ships light seconds away as predictive algorithms try to lead an enemy into a successful shot. The time taken to deploy strikecraft under such circumstances would render them moot, most engagements are settled in seconds by powerful capital ship grade weapons, and more importantly, computers and sensors. If the strikecraft require telemetry from their carrier to tell them where to fire, it is probably too late to hit anything.anything.

!!B10. If even "small ships" need large crews.
Approaching A9 from the other side, depending on how the technology pans out, the different roles a spacecraft's crew has to handle may get more complex, such that the traditional fighter's pilot-weapon systems officer two-man crew may no longer be adequate and larger crews are needed. In such a situation, crew complements could balloon to the point where they more closely resemble fast attack craft or patrol boats'. As such, although they might still technically count as "fighters" by virtue of being short-legged and reliant on carriers for operating away from friendly ports, their doctrine would necessarily differ from traditional fighters'.
26th Jun '15 12:38:04 PM StFan
Is there an issue? Send a Message


An easy way to make this happen is to create something like a smoke screen yourself. By firing a specially designed projectile which will be inflated and/or spread out small particles that are magnetically attracted to a centre zone, one can form an area that can block incoming DEW for a short while.(similar to whats being used in StarshipOperators) Smaller ships(i.e. Space figters) can use smaller versions to shorten the distance and use solid projectile weapons, or simply move to another angle to attack.

to:

An easy way to make this happen is to create something like a smoke screen yourself. By firing a specially designed projectile which will be inflated and/or spread out small particles that are magnetically attracted to a centre zone, one can form an area that can block incoming DEW for a short while.while (similar to whats being used in StarshipOperators) ''Anime/StarshipOperators''). Smaller ships(i.ships (i.e. Space figters) space fighters) can use smaller versions to shorten the distance and use solid projectile weapons, or simply move to another angle to attack.



!!A4. The manoeuvrability of space fighters versus larger ships makes them worthwhile.
Space [[SpaceIsAnOcean is not an ocean]], but space fighters would still be more manoeuvrable than larger spacecraft thanks to the SquareCubeLaw. The larger a spacecraft is, the harder it is for its structure to handle the stress of rapid acceleration during maneuvers -- see [[http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Science/Size.html this web-page for more on this]]. In this case, rather than being a space version of an aircraft fighter, the space fighter would be more analagous to a PT boat or other "fast attack craft". The main question is whether this added manoeuvrability would be enough of an advantage to make space fighters sensible -- missiles and robotic drones would have the same strength, after all, and likely even more when you take out the mass of the pilot or life-support gear. Still, some critics of space fighters do occasionally argue that larger ships have no disadvantage at all when compared to space fighters in a realistic setting, and this is one plausible counter-argument.

to:

!!A4. The manoeuvrability maneuverability of space fighters versus larger ships makes them worthwhile.
Space [[SpaceIsAnOcean is not an ocean]], but space fighters would still be more manoeuvrable maneuverable than larger spacecraft thanks to the SquareCubeLaw. The larger a spacecraft is, the harder it is for its structure to handle the stress of rapid acceleration during maneuvers -- see [[http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Science/Size.html this web-page for more on this]]. In this case, rather than being a space version of an aircraft fighter, the space fighter would be more analagous analogous to a PT boat or other "fast attack craft". The main question is whether this added manoeuvrability maneuverability would be enough of an advantage to make space fighters sensible -- missiles and robotic drones would have the same strength, after all, and likely even more when you take out the mass of the pilot or life-support gear. Still, some critics of space fighters do occasionally argue that larger ships have no disadvantage at all when compared to space fighters in a realistic setting, and this is one plausible counter-argument.



!!A9. If large ships became man operable with small crews.

to:

!!A9. If large ships became man operable man-operable with small crews.



Countering B4, a capital ship with too much armour (i.e. mass) will be a sitting duck under super long range sieges that are slower but are also massive.(e.g. asteroid bombs) since it is hard to turn and change course.

to:

Countering B4, a capital ship with too much armour (i.e. mass) will be a sitting duck under super long range sieges that are slower but are also massive.massive (e.g. asteroid bombs) since it is hard to turn and change course.



No cover, no hiding place, no horizont, entirely true in deep space, not if you want to capture something. If you want to capture an asteroid mine for example, mobile defender units can move behind the asteroid, or even hide in a shaft, missiles are a waste against them. Fighters can attack behind cover, and one dont have to bring the big ones close - the later sacrificies the advantage of superior laser range, and make the big ships also quite vulnerable.


to:

No cover, no hiding place, no horizont, entirely true in deep space, not if you want to capture something. If you want to capture an asteroid mine for example, mobile defender units can move behind the asteroid, or even hide in a shaft, missiles are a waste against them. Fighters can attack behind cover, and one dont don't have to bring the big ones close - -- the later sacrificies sacrifices the advantage of superior laser range, and make the big ships also quite vulnerable.

vulnerable.



The arguments are strong, that missiles are superior for a single fleet battle. How about a dozen fleet battle, maybe maintain peace and order on captured colonies? It does matter, whether an attack craft can be only used at once, or multiple times. Especially, if smaller rockets can also have advanced hardware, nuclear heat engines for example. Unlike missiles, fighters can return, if you can gather resources in space, refuelling is much cheaper than getting new missiles.
Also if the attack fleet already has a high closing speed (at the magnitude of 100km/s) then it doesnt count much, whether a missile add a further 10km/s, or a fighter only add 4km/s, and save the rest of the fuel for return.


to:

The arguments are strong, that missiles are superior for a single fleet battle. How about a dozen fleet battle, maybe maintain peace and order on captured colonies? It does matter, whether an attack craft can be only used at once, or multiple times. Especially, if smaller rockets can also have advanced hardware, nuclear heat engines for example. Unlike missiles, fighters can return, if you can gather resources in space, refuelling refueling is much cheaper than getting new missiles.
missiles.

Also if the attack fleet already has a high closing speed (at the magnitude of 100km/s) 100 km/s) then it doesnt doesn't count much, whether a missile add a further 10km/s, 10 km/s, or a fighter only add 4km/s, 4 km/s, and save the rest of the fuel for return.

This list shows the last 10 events of 91. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Analysis.SpaceFighter