Follow TV Tropes
Oh wow. I never can thought of that. What are you thinking? FTL capabale? Or having weapons that can significantly damage capital ships so therefor being strategically valuable for the carrier to perform “normal” raids?
Two ways of going about it. First is go heavy. The fighters occupy an odd spot between being too beefy to be shot down with anti-fighter weaponry and too agile to be hit with anti-ship weaponry.
Second is to go light. While the enemy favored ship-killers, you're own fighters are designed to be fighter-killers. Faster, more agile, or just with a more optimized loadout. Of course, you might need dedicated bombers if you want to capitalize on this.
A third is to go sneaky. They come equipped with a drive that has a greatly reduced heat signature, and therefore can detect the enemy long before the enemy can detect them.
Beli: your first option is pretty much the only one that’s viable for the scenario, especially kid that carrier is supposed to hold out until the shipyards spit out more.
Ballsy, Stealth In Space is a hard sell although fighters might be easier to pull off.
I do favor that one but it also means the fighters will be constantly taking damage. Not critical damage but more or less constant damage every mission.
And eventually the enemy is going to wise up and develop or adapt a weapon to destroy the heavy fighters.
Edited by Belisaurius on Apr 3rd 2019 at 8:55:05 AM
on the subject of carriers using non standard fighters i direct you to project Slypheed, the prototype carrier Acropolis runs from a colony world it was defending from a sillily large invading force. It’s ace in the hole is the Delta SABER, a prototype modular fighter that could deploy into any role from fast anti fighter/ bomber interception to precision strike bomber capable of destroying warships over a short time. This contrasts heavily with the main allied fighter the Arrow, bad swarm craft type fighter.
Edited by Godson_Bane on Apr 3rd 2019 at 12:08:41 PM
I'm actually curious what the Standard missile's effective range would be against a big slow target like a ship, vs the fast small targets (planes and missiles) it was originally designed for. I seriously doubt a destroyer is going to be very capable of evading the missile, so even if the missile is on a ballistic trajectory with a dry motor, the ship's only real options are to spoof it with countermeasures or try to shoot it down.
And even then, if they're trying to shoot down relatively harmless Standard missiles, they're that much less capable of also fending off dedicated ship-killer missiles like the Harpoon. And even then, the Standard has something like a 50lb warhead, that's only relatively harmless. It could still easily do some significant damage, especially depending on what it landed on.
In any case, while a CVN flinging Anti-Air missiles at enemy surface targets is an interesting concept, it probably indicates the tactical situation is not ideal for the Americans.
Edited by AFP on Apr 3rd 2019 at 3:49:54 AM
How viable would a space born bomber be? Something like a large ship that is little more then a glorified dump truck to dump munitions out on a sub orbital trajectory.
Would the vastly increased munitions capacity something like that would offer, paired with the fact that for ground attack you don't really need cannons due to gravity, provide any notable use over just firing guns downward?
Depends on how literal you want to be. It's hard to imagine scenarios in which spacecraft drop bombs on a target, outside of low orbit. One possiblility might be a small, fast craft that accelerates directly toward the target, and releases a kinetic slug just before manuvering away.
The SM-6 can be fired against both surface and air targets so the concept of firing off SAM type missiles against other targets is perfectly viable. Some of those Anti-Air Missiles have some pretty monstrous warheads and the KKV variants are basically guided supersonic telephone poles or large high-speed metal rocks.
For me, space fighter bombers are always missile trucks that just fire a ton of explosive ammunition right at the target.
RE: Standard missiles attacking sea targets
They had an exercise not long ago where a single SM-6 killed an Oliver Hazard-Perry class frigate.
Tom: That would be the one. Though I don't recall it sinking it, but it fucked it up pretty good. A 140lb Blast frag warhead is nothing to laugh at.
Couple of different ways to do space bombers, just as there are a couple of different ways to do aerial bombers in real life. The big flying truck type could be used to deploy ballistic warheads (think The Last Jedi) that cruise towards the target on their own inertia, though against anything that could maneuver it might be of limited use. Alternately, the same type of craft could be used to lob off a volley of missiles. In Real Life, heavy bombers serve both roles equally well (a B-52 Stratofortress can carry an impressive number of cruise missiles in the bomb bay and on the wing hardpoints).
I had an idea about a craft that can be configured to be either a bomber or a transport, with both a bomb bay door in the belly and conventional passenger doors and cargo ramps. Just maybe be careful about opening the bomb bay door when you're carrying troops or cargo. Although imagine a company of space marines being dropped en masse from the bomb bay.
Come to think of it, I might have gotten this idea from the Starship Troopers cartoon, where the dropships were equally capable of dropping cap troopers or bombs. Or, on one occasion, a captive plasma bug, which probably broke one law of armed conflict or three.
I prefer torpedo boat bomber designs. Especially as I just rewatched Rogue One and I love how dedicated the space combat is.
Hell just the site of a Star Destroyer going dead at the use of ionic weaponry.
I was thinking. After watching the expanse it seems that a lot of the weapons work by turning their ships at crazy angles and firing weapons en masse. Wouldn’t this waste a lot of fuel? Why not have weapon systems at nearly every angle, “bottom” and “top” of the ship?
I’m sure this wouldn’t apply to soft sci-fi ships as there would be no need for crazy angles
More weapons = more mass. The more stuff you shove into your hull the more mass your hauling. That and you still need all the internal space for the mountings so you wind up with more mass because you need increasingly more ship to mount more weapons. You're effectively still trying to push around the mass.
IIRC most of their weapons were turreted in some way but you can only cover so many arcs and you will need maneuver the ship to get your best coverage. Just like a battleship does best by presenting a broadside vs straight front or straight back.
You can get broad arcs of coverage in general but your still fighting various limitations to your design one way or another.
Edited by TuefelHundenIV on Apr 13th 2019 at 10:30:33 AM
Even with missile systems it can often be more advantageous to fire directly upon an opponent by means of facing a different angle than to simply rely on Roboteching. For example, an AIM-9X Sidewinder can lock on and fire on a target up to 90 degrees off bore, but the most reliable shot continues to be straight in front of the plane.
It’s a question of efficiency. Is it more efficient to have turreted weapons or carry all the fuel needed to adjust yourself to any angle the battlefield might present?
Some mix of the two would probably be the best idea.
Edited by archonspeaks on Apr 13th 2019 at 8:44:17 AM
^ That purely depends upon the weapons systems employed. A pure missile ship may have no need for turrets. Guns may be best employed as a Fixed Forward-Facing Weapon.
A ship-killing, city-busting, possibly planet-cracking railgun has no need for turrets at the most powerful levels. Point defense guns however do.
Edited by MajorTom on Apr 13th 2019 at 9:03:29 AM
The missiles they use are all incredibly lightweight and use their own epstein drives, so launching a torpedo and having it rocket out isn't unusual.
IRL, regardless of tech level or weapon mix, at very long ranges and no cover it can be advategous to invest in a single very large weapon system such that the entire ship is effectively the turret. Such a ship would still have some smaller weapons as point defenses, of course.
Also, you don't need to expend reaction mass to rotate a ship. You can handle that with flywheels and gyroscopes: well-established and mature technologies that can store and transfer angular momentum. Many modern spacecraft do this, especially satellites. Now, a really big ship would need really massive flywheels to pull off this trick, so using thrusters might give them higher rotational speed, but it's not strictly a question of "more turrets" vs "more reaction mass".
Edited by Fighteer on Apr 13th 2019 at 4:09:12 AM
I would point out those flywheels and gyroscopes take more time to move the ship. Pretty much all the descriptions I have seen of them suggest it takes longer to rotate and turn something with that particular method than using something like an RCS or vectored thrust. It would work fine if you had the time to make the adjustments or only needed fine adjustment something the majority of satellites use the mechanical methods for. Hubble uses the flywheels for mostly slow and fine adjustments it can take a fair bit of time for it to move using that method but it is fuel efficient.
And more precise than the rocket powered version. Depending on how important it is to align the weapon to intercept the target over very long distances, I could see a spacecraft using some combination of both.
Community Showcase More