A space carrier concept

[TrailerParkJawa]

Do you think it would be possible for a carrier to carry fighters not to battle other space ships, but to fight in the atmoshpere of planets.

ie) Fighters are too short ranged for battling capital ships, but you still need something to attack targets on the ground.

[The Dark]

Do you think it would be possible for a carrier to carry fighters not to battle other space ships, but to fight in the atmoshpere of planets.

ie) Fighters are too short ranged for battling capital ships, but you still need something to attack targets on the ground.

Getting them back would be a problem, since breaking to even LEO is a fuel hog. I personally don't see it as much more practical (if any) than a pure space fighter, since you would also have to add mass in the need for lifting surfaces (which a pure space fighter doesn't need) and elevators/ailerons. It might be possible, but a pure aerofighter would most likely outperform it.

[TrailerParkJawa]

Getting them back would be a problem, since breaking to even LEO is a fuel hog. I personally don't see it as much more practical (if any) than a pure space fighter, since you would also have to add mass in the need for lifting surfaces (which a pure space fighter doesn't need) and elevators/ailerons. It might be possible, but a pure aerofighter would most likely outperform it.

Okay, I can buy that. Mabye by then, manned fighter craft would be rare anyway. Instead of carrying fighters each ship could carry UCAV's and drop them from orbit to fight. If they dont come back, so what.

I suppose in that case manned or unmanned you would not need a carrier in the sense we are discussing but a big transport to simply bring the fighters to a land base already secured by ground troops.

Im assuming though the defenders of the planet would not give up. I think in reality once LEO is secured they would surrender. Except for guerrilla types anyway.

[Bob McDob]

I think the saying goes: "If you let cruisers get in range of your carriers, you deserve to die"

Space carriers are pointless as space fighters are a supremely stupid brainbug in the first place. On planets, the carrier-fighter model makes sense because fighter aircraft can fly a lot faster than carrier ships can float. In space everything flys in the same medium so there is no benefit to the figher-carrier model. The real killer for space fighters, however, is fuel. Depending on the efficiency of their engines, fighters could require tens of thousands of times more fuel than one-shot long range missiles. Needless to say buying and transporting all this fuel is both uneconomic and difficult.

Ships in Wing Commander use ramscoops which gives them virtually unlimited fuel supplies.

Congratulations. You have just won the "missing the fucking point" award for ignoring the fact that he was referring to the fact that space fighters IRL are a bad idea, not that science fiction doesn't use them. Unless you think that fighter-sized ramscopps would generate any significant amount of fuel.

There's nothing realistic about science fiction.

[Shinova]

You need to define some other basic ideas for how this carrier intends to operate.

For instance if it is as a part of a carrier group ... forget it. Have dedicated gunships and dedicated carriers. Defensive anti-fighter weapons on the carrier only.

If the carrier has to operate alone (without destroyers, cruisers, battleships, etc. gaurding it), then some anti-cap ship weapons might be excusable. You invariably have to make compromises for stand alone ships. If you plan to engage with your fighters, but need some big guns just in chance ... well it might be worth it to get the time to run away. This is the only excuse what so many crappy ship designs can be rationalized in sci-fi ... they have to be ludicriously versitile and so you have to take trade-offs that are ludicrious for specific situations.

The one case where the one big gun is really legit is if it's a search and destroy fast carrier. Basically the fighters are used predominately for covert recon. Once they find a target, they act as spotters for the big gun which fires from far, far away ... or the ship comes in FAST takes one kill shot, and then gets the hell out.

If your fighters provide more offensive power than your big gun ... then screw the big gun in most cases. If your big gun is more powerful (divided by your limiting factor ... space, mass, cash) then why are you bothering with fighters? If you need a defensive fighter screen ... then have a dedicated carrier.

For any major engagement you really want specialized ships. Destroyers, cruisers, battleships, carriers, some type of stealth/submarine craft ... Real militaries use specialized battle groups for a reason ... they work.

I'm assuming those were directed at me and I'll try to answer them to the best of my abilities.


1. This carrier is supposed to function as a flagship/super-dreadnaught/juggernaught. Mega-carrier would be an appropriate term I guess.

2. Main gun is powerful enough to destroy any opposing ship in one blast. Has a fast recharge rate too. At the very least it'll severely cripple an enemy.

3. Fighters are used because the main gun takes up so much power (both for firepower and the firing rate) that there can't be much in terms of defensive weapons. Hence, the fighters are used.


That's what I intended for this carrier to be like. Hope it answers your questions.

[Darth Wong]

The logic used to invalidate fighters in space can arguably be used to invalidate them in real life too. Fighters have far more intelligence tha missiles; a pilot has decision-making capability well above that of a missile.

Moreover, the distinction between large ships and small ships in space as opposed to the surface of planets is exaggerated. In reality, fighters make much more sense than heavy capital ships in space, for the simple reason that missiles can be made extremely powerful and so there is simply no reason to mount them on a big platform.

Aerodynamic resistance does not exist in space, but inertial mass still does, and a big ship is proportionately more difficult to accelerate or maneuver.

Carriers DO make sense in space if there is some lower scale limit to, say, FTL propulsion. However, the "jack of all trades" idea of shoe-horning heavy guns into a carrier is just silly, as most of the people here have pointed out. It is always better to have complementary combined-arms warfare than trying to make one platform do everything.

[data_link]

I'm assuming those were directed at me and I'll try to answer them to the best of my abilities.


1. This carrier is supposed to function as a flagship/super-dreadnaught/juggernaught. Mega-carrier would be an appropriate term I guess.

2. Main gun is powerful enough to destroy any opposing ship in one blast. Has a fast recharge rate too. At the very least it'll severely cripple an enemy.

3. Fighters are used because the main gun takes up so much power (both for firepower and the firing rate) that there can't be much in terms of defensive weapons. Hence, the fighters are used.


That's what I intended for this carrier to be like. Hope it answers your questions.

Get rid of the fighters. Use the extra space to mount a second reactor & main cannon. Use defensive gunships to escort this ship into battle.

[Bob McDob]

The logic used to invalidate fighters in space can arguably be used to invalidate them in real life too. Fighters have far more intelligence tha missiles; a pilot has decision-making capability well above that of a missile.

Moreover, the distinction between large ships and small ships in space as opposed to the surface of planets is exaggerated. In reality, fighters make much more sense than heavy capital ships in space, for the simple reason that missiles can be made extremely powerful and so there is simply no reason to mount them on a big platform.

<devilsadvocate> Bigger, more intelligent, harder to destroy capship missiles, however, can be mounted on bigger platforms. Why build a fighter when it's little more than a manned missile, with less payload?</devilsadvocate>

[AdmiralKanos]

<devilsadvocate> Bigger, more intelligent, harder to destroy capship missiles, however, can be mounted on bigger platforms. Why build a fighter when it's little more than a manned missile, with less payload?</devilsadvocate>

Because a fighter pilot has better judgement than a missile.

[Bob McDob]

I never really bought into that part of science fiction . . . I always figured if a race can cross the galaxy during a weekend and devastate entire star sectors at a word, they'd be able to build better artificial intelligence.

But then, they'd be sentient beings and thus count as pilots, I guess.

[Cpt_Frank]

Hmm...

I'd say build a number of medium-sized carriers with only some weak defensive armament to support heavily armed capital ships with their attack craft.

Purity of purpose is generally a good idea.[/quote]

[Enlightenment]

The logic used to invalidate fighters in space can arguably be used to invalidate them in real life too.

Not really. Do the numbers.



u = final vehicle velocity
v = exaust velocity
M_0 = vehicle dry mass (structure & payload)
M = vehicle wet mass (structure, payload and fuel).
u_0 = initial velocity.

Solve for M and plug in numbers for the desired dry mass, exaust velocity, and final velocity/delta-v

To calculate the fuel quantity needed for a missile, plug in zero for initial velocity and turn the crank.

To calculate the fuel quantity needed for a fighter (or indeed any spacecraft that has a fly-out, fly-back flight profile), iterate over the equation four times and use the resulting M values from each round as the M_0 value for the next.

After the last round, compare the final wet mass figure with the fighter's dry mass. For reasonable values of v and useful quantities of u, it should be rather apparant that space fighters are at best a dubious concept.

Note that none of this applies to fighter aircraft. Fighter aircraft don't need a mass fraction worse than 1/10 just to return to the carrier.

In reality, fighters make much more sense than heavy capital ships in space, for the simple reason that missiles can be made extremely powerful and so there is simply no reason to mount them on a big platform.

That depends on what one is intending to shoot at. If the target is on the other side of the solar system there are certain advantages to using a missile the size of a 747. Advantages like the missile having enough thrust to reach its target in an interval not measured in years. 747-sized missiles won't fit on SF-sized fighters.

Similarly, fighter-sized craft lack the volume to carry the necessary supplies and crew members to sustain operations over an extended period. Through the use of shifts, a ship with a decent-sized crew can remain combat effective for days or even weeks without standdown. In contrast a one or two person fighter will be hard pressed to maintain functionality let alone combat effectiveness after as few as 36 hours. A 36 hour mission duration doesn't translate into all that much of an operational radius in the absense of an Uberdrive propulsion system.

[The Dark]

In reality, fighters make much more sense than heavy capital ships in space, for the simple reason that missiles can be made extremely powerful and so there is simply no reason to mount them on a big platform.

That depends on what one is intending to shoot at. If the target is on the other side of the solar system there are certain advantages to using a missile the size of a 747. Advantages like the missile having enough thrust to reach its target in an interval not measured in years. 747-sized missiles won't fit on SF-sized fighters.

True, but with such a fighter, the missile wouldn't need to be 747-sized. Much less fuel would be needed on the missile, and a comparable warhead could hypothetically be carried. The majority of the momentum would come from the fighter itself, with the missile's drive used only for the final attack run.

Similarly, fighter-sized craft lack the volume to carry the necessary supplies and crew members to sustain operations over an extended period. Through the use of shifts, a ship with a decent-sized crew can remain combat effective for days or even weeks without standdown. In contrast a one or two person fighter will be hard pressed to maintain functionality let alone combat effectiveness after as few as 36 hours. A 36 hour mission duration doesn't translate into all that much of an operational radius in the absense of an Uberdrive propulsion system.

Again true, but the fighters would be used as scouts (18 hours out and back with a 2 g constant acceleration is a long distance. I left my calculator programmed with my space formulas at home, or I would have hard numbers). Fighters also could pull heavier strikes than a capship. The amount of firepower a capship can launch is limited by its size and the need to mount point defense, ships stores, fuel, etcetera, etcetera. A fighter, however, carries none of those, and a swarm of fighters would be better able to overwhelm point defense IMHO. The best offense would coordinate both together, but I would prefer fighters over capships most of the time.

[tharkûn]

Shinova: My best design:
1. Have a dedicated battleship/cruiser with the big gun. Dump the fighters so you can move faster.
2. Have escort ships for defense, these might be destroyers, cruisers ... or they might be a dedicated carrier with defensive fighters. In any event you get more bang for the buck out a multiple ship task force than out of one half-and-half-assed.

Even for just one ship I'd take greater kill range, stealth or speed before I'd dick with a defensive fighter screen.

Mike:
Carriers DO make sense in space if there is some lower scale limit to, say, FTL propulsion. However, the "jack of all trades" idea of shoe-horning heavy guns into a carrier is just silly, as most of the people here have pointed out. It is always better to have complementary combined-arms warfare than trying to make one platform do everything.
Carriers make sense outright if you want to have any type of operational radius. First off the big slow carrier can carry things that you DON'T want on fighters like:
Months worth of fuel.
Toiletry facilities (say showers).
Additional crew for 24/7 operation.
Reloads.
Recreational facilities.
Months worth of provisions.
Large, somewhat delicate sensor arrays.
Spare parts.
Repair facilities.
Etc.

In short when you send a fighter into combat you want it to be an engine, a gun, a sensor ... and nothing else. All the crap you need to carry for prolonged missions will SERIOUSLY hamper a fighter's mobility and increase its target profile; leave it on the carrier away from the battle. As I was told, "Speed is life", weighting down your fighters is a good way to make them easy targets.

If you have two sets of fighters going into combat, one with fuel, reloads, spare parts, larger crews, etc. and stripped down versions that use carriers/tenders ... the carrier based will kick ass, ceteris parabis. The carrier group is the ONLY way to go if you want to feild fighters. This allows the fighters to be as mobile, agile, lethal, and survivable as possible. This allows your other ships to optimize for their duties (i.e. tenders, destroyers, etc.). If you want uber-ranging fighters for some strange mission you either go with inflight refueling or bolt on external tanks.

Hell we have globe circling fighters today ... carriers still make sense because they provide quicker response, better crew efficiency, and allow the fighters to be repaired in the event of light/moderate damage.

Other reasons space carriers (or at the very least battle groups) make good sense:
Overgunned engines. Fighter engines are typically run much closer (or over) the redline than anything else. Due to this fighter engines live short lives and need serious, regular work. They are further optimized for short, high demand use. By using carriers you can optimize the carrier for long term engine use, and the fighter engine for combat use. The carrier (or whatever) can be fuel efficient and reliable (and run the hell away from combat), the fighter can be optimized for combat performance. Basically the carrier is optimized for logisitics and the fighter for combat performance.

Survivability is a huge issue. If you a battle group you can recover fighters that are damaged, but salvagable. So your engine gets shot out from under you (given that this WON'T mean erupting into a ball of flame), you are out of the current battle, but you can be towed back to the carrier (or whatever), repaired, and generally be ready for the next attack. Even if the fighter itself is a complete loss it is still worth it to recover the pilot. This does wonders for morale and is well worth the resources as good pilots take years to train (and hideous amounts of battlefeild experience or training costs). Expecting fighters to tow their own wounded, repair them EVA, and still maintain combat readiness is ludicrious. Abandoning your cripples is not effective longterm.

Survivablity of a pre-emptive attack. The enemy gets a fix on your position and launches a pre-emptive attack. In the battle group you have escorts who buy you time to launch/run the hell away. The also can take out missiles before they impact. Fighters alone is just an open invitation to make a preemptive run with one bigass bomb and take out a huge chunk of the swarm with light casualties of your own.

The big advantage missiles have over fighters is that they don't have to keep the pilot alive. The missile boat (something like say the SSGN's) would most likely beat out the fighter for stand alone deployment, as it can maintain a larger operational radius and launch more deadly volleys. However I'm still a fan of the battle group with individually optimized platforms.