Carriers vs Battleships in space combat

[Shinova]

Which are better for space combat? Carriers (Wing Commander style) or battleships (Freespace 2, Star Wars, etc)?

[paladin]

It's really hard to say. But using both would be best for space combat.

[The Yosemite Bear]

Actually Starwars uses ships that are both.

The Federation is the only one with <WWI Ships of the Line syndrome, ok them and Webber, but at least Webber does it right.

[Dahak]

It all really comes down what your technology favours.

In Honor Harrington verse, the bigger the ship, the bigger the weapons. The "fighters" they now employ (still quite large) basically can do nothing to really harm an Superdreadnought in a one-on-one basis.

Other technologies can make fighters feasible, like Wing Commander, or Starfire.

[Exonerate]

Look at it this way: If you blow a Battleship up, then its useless. However, if you blow up a Crusier's fighters, then it can still retreat and restock.

[Kuja]

You need a mix to get it right.

[Neko_Oni]

Depends, if it's 'real life' combat, I'd say battleships. I'd say a missile ship is a better alternative to a fighter carrier (assuming you have good AI technology).

[Enlightenment]

It all depends on the technology level and how far one twists the laws of physics. In a hard SF context where no physical laws are broken--e.g. no FTL, no reactionless drives--the missile cruiser or battleship model is the only way to go by several orders of magnitude. In something like Wing Commander where ramscoops are practical then fighters make a lot of sense.

[starfury]

Which are better for space combat? Carriers (Wing Commander style) or battleships (Freespace 2, Star Wars, etc)?

most of the so-called battleships in sci-fi are already part carrier, I think it also matters where you want the balance to swing, a carrier with some heavy guns or a battleship which just happens to carry some fighters.

[pellaeons_scion]

Id go with the battleships. With tough shielding and giga-ton weaponry needed to punch through those shields what chance could fighters have against them? Well, maybe excepting massed bomber attacks. At best fighters would be a harrasment than a main strike weapon. Also, battleships can effectively lay siege to planets and installations and can be a tool to control sectors.

On the whole though, the best fleet would be comprised of both classes of vessels. Which is SW ships are cool

[Sea Skimmer]

Battleships, if you have energy shielding. Star Fighters are not viable weapons in anything but a distant support role. If you don't have shields then small corvettes would be best.

[Uraniun235]

It depends totally on the technology involved, hence there is no definitive answer.

Personally, I find capital ship combat more appealing than carrier-fighter combat.

[RedImperator]

Among other problems with fighters, in space, there's no horizon for them to hide behind. Unless there's heavy ECM, they can be tracked from wherever they're launched. And unless they've got lots of propellant to burn to maneuver around, they're going to have to come in on basically a straight-line trajectory. Combine the two, and a ship's point defense guns should have no trouble tracking bombers in. Battleships all the way.

[starfury]

Personally, I find capital ship combat more appealing than carrier-fighter combat.

many shows tried to combine both as I recall, large battleships and cruisers often had a small complement of fighters and bombers to support their big guns. hence while I felt they are cool, if rather impractical.

[Evil Sadistic Bastard]

If fighters have the capacity to deal massive damage to capital ships (i.e. extremely high-powered projectile weapons) then carriers own.

If only battleships can hurt other battleships then obviously carriers would kind of suck. Although they could probably get through shield holes and harass people.

[Darth Wong]

Offense vs defense.

If offense is stronger (as it is in real life), then fighters win. They can approach/assess the enemy and launch missiles at either long or short range depending on the situation.

If defense is strong (as it is in Star Wars), then battleships win. They can effortlessly shake off hundreds of direct hits from starfighter weapons or missiles and so you have no chance of destroying one unless you can bring massive firepower to bear.

[Typhonis 1]

Actually fighters can such could be uised in a Battleship group they wont attack the big boys per say they would be sent after the cripples

[Coalition]

At a guess, it'd depend on the ratios between the following variables:

1) ship speed
2) fighter speed
3) defense strength
4) offense strength
5) range of weapons from the platforms
6) Cost requirements of the platforms

If ship speed and fighter speed are roughly the same, then one might as well go with ships, as they can withstand more damage without losing lives, along with repair taking less time, not to mention less paperwork.

If defense strength is high, then fighters all not much use, as they will not be able to penetrate enemy shields. The key use would be picking off small isolated targets (like SW). If defense strength is low, then fighters will be primary combatants (as they can strike from hidden bases, and destroy opposing ships).

If fighters have a short range compared to standard weapons, then battleships would be the primary weapons, as the battleship can engage and destroy the carrier before the fighters can engage and destroy the battleship.

Finally, if 1 carrier can destroy 1 battleship in a standard fight, and the carrier is also destroyed, but the carrier costs more than the battleship, then the battleship fleet will win, as they can replace their fleet for less costs.

So I'd say there are too many variables to properly compare them.

[SWPIGWANG]

Unless some weird tech makes newton roll in his grave, missile > fighter