Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Taricus]

The fighters can't be drones themselves?

[GreatWyrmGold]

If they're manned, they're fighters. If they're not, they're drones. Regardless, if we're intending them to fly there and stop before going to a rendezvous point, they'll need a hell of a lot more delta-v than a missile or somesuch.

[BFEL]

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

The only possible advantages are maneuverability (which of course makes fuel tanks need to be significantly bigger in harder science fiction), maybe being harder to hit, and probably being cheaper (possibly enough to swarm?). They're probably best-suited to near-suicide missions, like assaulting Death Stars.
That, and as orbital defense vehicles or somesuch. Maybe a version for helping with the point defense of larger vessels?

Hmm, other than go back in movie history, I hope this piece of relative history would help.

1. Fighters were used as pinpoint precision weapons. They delivered the exact strike to where it was needed. This is expounded in #3
2. Space. Space is 3D. 3D much like how we've got dogfights and such in the earlier days-sans the note of gravity. Attacks may be made from any and all angles.
3. Big ships only have computer and targeting modules to guide any ordnance from big ship₁ to big ship₂. Fighters, being human-controlled, can make the split critical decision which aids in the effectivity of a strike and the position of the projectile or bomb in question. Our problem is manpower--we cannot field that many fighters given our people...as far as I know.
Anyway: Take that in mind. Fighters, while tiny and seemingly insignificant (I wonder if many others here just think big and not the minor details o_O) HAVE a vital role to play in wars. They can take out and disable strategic points in larger ships or installations, as well as load up boarding crews (if needed). They can harass the enemy when larger weapons would take longer and worsen the problem as a whole. They can penetrate shielded facilities and deep-strike from therein.

Oh, and knowing that we can load quite powerful weapons on -relatively small- platforms? That's a huge plus to fighters.

1. What they WERE used for and what they CAN BE used for in future battlefields (i.e. SPACE) are very different things.
2. Larger ships can also take advantage of this, and just as well. Space COMPLETELY changes the rules for maneuverability. Its not just "more 3D" its also a vacuum with little gravity, meaning that overall mass isn't as huge a deal as in atmosphere. If two ships, one fighter size and one death star size are both designed the same, just on a different scale, they will work effectively the same in space. There is no "maneuverability" boost from fighters. Their only advantages are how much cheaper they are, and throwing people in them just makes them heavier, more expensive, and generally less awesome.
3. Even if this did make sense, you can instead have a remote link and human "pilots" on a bigger less blown up ship, using this "fighter" as a drone and still getting whatever advantages you get from a human mind. This also lets the ship/missle thing be overall lighter and less retarded.  Basically you control the ship like a video game.

[smurfingtonthethird]

Space battles are like 3D 18-century naval battles with far more dakka, robots and metal.

[BFEL]

Space battles are like 3D 18-century naval battles with far more dakka, robots and metal.

No, they are not actually anything like that at all, no. At least not outside of movies.

[smurfingtonthethird]

Tactics wise, its fairly similar. It just has fighters now.

[Toaster]

I realize this only solves part of the problem (and introduces a new one) but that article completely ignores catapult launches for fighters, which are a thing now and would eliminate one delta-v.  Arrestor cables trim down another on recapture.  That said, they are obviously still problematic, but it's something the article doesn't account for.

The new problem, of course, is that this now requires the fighters to be pointed at the target when launched.

[GreatWyrmGold]

If two ships, one fighter size and one death star size are both designed the same, just on a different scale, they will work effectively the same in space.

Wrong. The Death-Star-Sized ship would probably tear itself apart.
But aside from little things like that, yeah.

Space battles are like 3D 18-century naval battles with far more dakka, robots and metal.

Tactics wise, its fairly similar. It just has fighters now.

How so?

[Tiruin]

1. Why can't the big spaceships do the same? Or automated drones?
2. The problem is, anything little ships can do big ones can do better.
3. Humans are not inherently superior to computerized targeting. If they were, we wouldn't have targeting computers.

Why can't we load the powerful weapons onto larger platforms?

I'd scoff at #3. The human mind outpowers any computer at present. :I

But wonder why there are targeting computers to aid instead of do all our work here.

#1: Minor details, sir. Automated drones cannot beat a sufficiently trained fighter pilot (or, suggest this IC! We'd be happy to test that out)

2: I'd love for this to be proven.

Edit: In our scale, as I guess we're talking 'Hephaestus production force output', I'd...well, side with drones.
Because I'm seriously thinking a weird tangent. The Anima from Sins of a Solar Empire. Really efficient use of 'drones'.

But yeah, considering manpower over the physics of space, drones seem better than manned fighters. Especially regarding manpower.

[Taricus]

Smaller craft ARE more manoeuvrable in space actually, since it would take less energy to shift their mass and velocity into a different direction. 

[Tiruin]

And considering how weapons platforms are? We are still limited by the degree of maneuverability of said platforms.

+1 to fighters!
Take that larger ships. :I

[Taricus]

Larger ships would certainly have the armour to shrug off most fighter-scale weapons, and would likely have escorting anti-fighter craft as well. Not to mention the larger mass of said larger ships, and the more deadly weaponry contained on-board them.

Fighters would be, far and above, more useful than static installations at the very least.

[Radio Controlled]

space based avatars

A big capital ship made of synthflesh...
*shivers* With the innate protection of such a mass of synthflesh, combined with the increased intelligence and self-awareness and overall power, one could have a very dangerous weapon indeed.

@Radio: Maybe, but by that point you may as well get the fighter since costs for all that would be pretty high there. Theoretically though, small fighter craft would be useful because of the energy shielding on most ships, yet most of them seem to lack something against ballistic weapons. Mount a cannon or two on a fighter, have them make short runs on the ships.

You sure the cost (and increased size of ship) for pilot's cockpit, life support and such would be less than decent communication equipment? Sounds iffy.

Also, are we still talking ER-related, or general real-life viability? Cause if latter: http://futurewarstories.blogspot.be/2012/05/fws-topics-hard-science-space-fighters.html

And one thing I just thought up that should be said about the boarding: Do expect the UWM ships not only to have a self-destruct protocol, but expect them to use it as well.

Indeed, but we have Steve for helping to prevent that. He could probably hack a ship very fast (considering he probably helped design it, and so might have left a backdoor for him to use).

RC that setting idea is awesome. Do make.

thanks, but most probably not. It'll probably be like my ideas for running an RTD: nice concepts, but lack of time and energy prevent me from really getting into it.

Is this "gravity field":
A. something sensors can detect?
B. the only way things in phasespace or whatever interact with the world?
C. actually a gravitational field?
And for that matter, can the gravity fields of two phasing ships interact?

A. It is an inherent property of every object that has any mass. So yes, but only for big objects (like in real life, basically, you can deduce the presence of a massive object by the effect of it's gravity). You could calculate the distance they are likely to leave their jump given mass of two objects though.
B. Haven't worked out all the details, but probably yes.
C. any object just has gravity like it normally does. It's just that, the more mass something has, the greater this 'gravity field' is in temrs of forcing ships out of their jump. You know the usual analogy for gravity, the one with the ball on a big elastic sheet? Well, like that: the more mass, the bigger the distortion in spacetime, so the sooner it disrupt the jumping process.

@ Tiruin: space fighters=/=planet-bound fighters. Just like space warfare=/=naval warfare. Read the link above and the pages you find linked there.

Smaller craft ARE more manoeuvrable in space actually, since it would take less energy to shift their mass and velocity into a different direction.

But they need a lot of fuel to stay useful for any extended period of time (unless you have an energy storage source with ridiculous energy density). Maybe (maybe) if you can ambush ships at close range (due to fixed FTL jump points, par example) they could work (and actually be efficient at their job, instead of being an excuse to have jock fighter pilot character that get all the girls).

[Sean Mirrsen]

You know, with the way robobodies are, you could just make a fighter "body" for a braincase.

If you ever played Homeworld, you may be familiar with the concept of "The Unbound"...

[GreatWyrmGold]

I'd scoff at #3. The human mind outpowers any computer at present. :I

The human mind is good for some things. Rapid, precise activity? Not one of them.

#1: Minor details, sir. Automated drones cannot beat a sufficiently trained fighter pilot (or, suggest this IC! We'd be happy to test that out)

Hardly minor.
And let's say you're right, that you have some ace pilot better than any computer. Call him Luke. You have one Luke, and his fighter needs to be bloated so it can hold life-support and enough fuel to get there, stop, and get back.
Contrast that with drones, which are a lot cheaper, don't require a masterful, probably fictional pilot, and don't need life support systems or as much fuel.
It's easy to see which wins out in all fields but Force usage...

2: I'd love for this to be proven.

Name something small ships could do better.

Smaller craft ARE more manoeuvrable in space actually, since it would take less energy to shift their mass and velocity into a different direction.

Actually, it would take an identical percentage of their fuel to accelerate the same amount. Basically, they can accelerate just as much, it's just cheaper. Which seems to be the only benefit to smaller ships (assuming the big ones aren't big enough that their inertia tears them apart).

And considering how weapons platforms are? We are still limited by the degree of maneuverability of said platforms.
+1 to fighters!
Take that larger ships. :I

Turrets.

space based avatars

A big capital ship made of synthflesh...
*shivers* With the innate protection of such a mass of synthflesh, combined with the increased intelligence and self-awareness and overall power, one could have a very dangerous weapon indeed.

Possibly to both the user and the enemy.

RC that setting idea is awesome. Do make.

thanks, but most probably not. It'll probably be like my ideas for running an RTD: nice concepts, but lack of time and energy prevent me from really getting into it.

Aw.

Is this "gravity field":
A. something sensors can detect?
B. the only way things in phasespace or whatever interact with the world?
C. actually a gravitational field?
And for that matter, can the gravity fields of two phasing ships interact?

A. It is an inherent property of every object that has any mass. So yes, but only for big objects (like in real life, basically, you can deduce the presence of a massive object by the effect of it's gravity). You could calculate the distance they are likely to leave their jump given mass of two objects though.
B. Haven't worked out all the details, but probably yes.
C. any object just has gravity like it normally does. It's just that, the more mass something has, the greater this 'gravity field' is in te[rm]s of forcing ships out of their jump. You know the usual analogy for gravity, the one with the ball on a big elastic sheet? Well, like that: the more mass, the bigger the distortion in spacetime, so the sooner it disrupt the jumping process.

Oh, I see. Gravity is still caused by and still affects the phased ships, but it can also pull phased ships out of phasedness.
In principle, more advanced and accurate sensors could detect fairly small masses via gravity, correct?