Fighter Brainbug?

[General Soontir Fel]

The question is, why should I bother with fighters/bombers/torpedo boats if I can just use missiles instead?

A bomber comes back for another run. So, you're not throwing away a long-range engine with every shot at the enemy.

The bombers could be controlled by A.I., but if they have to actively search for the enemy, that may require a complex decision-making process that is better done by a a sentient pilot.

The difference between the bomber and a missile is not the presense or absence of a crew, it's that the bomber returns to the carrier, and can go out again. If FTL drives are significantly more expensive than sublight ones, it makes sense to install FTL on bombers only.

[Patrick Degan]

If any civilisation is going to make the investment of building such a platform in the first place, they're not going to make it as anything other than a ship designed for long-haul missions with the attendant maintenance and support requirements.

Depends on the stategic manouverability. If you've got some kind of fold-space drive, or something that can cross the galaxy in an hour, a mission to defend a colony or punish rebels need only take half a day. Take an engine, some weapons, and maybe some defences, and bolt on a bare minimum sized control pod for the crew to sit in, and you've got a starship.

And if the jump-drive breaks down at the destination point or in the middle of hostile space...?

While space-opera vessels "can have any size crew they like" due to "writers' fiat", that does not automatically negate the exercise of rational analysis into how a given vessel would be constructed to follow a particular function and mission profile.

However, when dealing with completely made up things, such as FTL, we can construct a mission profile however we like. Jump-and-nuke for example, doesn't require a massive long term crew or major maintainance capacities.

In which case, you wouldn't have battleships, you'd have bombers.

Aside from that, at the end of the day the rebuttal of your attempted Saturn V analogy still stands: that rocket is not at all comparable to any hypothetical starship given its limitations —chief of which is that it had to be about 90% fuel simply to get to translunar flight because of the performance restrictions of chemical fuel.

You find there to be something wrong with a sci-fi starship that's basically all engine - why? That seems eminently reasonable to me. Why can't space opera starships be all engine?

Little thing called energy density. Ever hear of it?

The only reason a Saturn V is 90% fuel is because it has to be. Because the energy density of chemical fuel is piss-poor compared to the sort of fuel which would make a starship possible in the first place. I really don't know why this has to be explained to you.

[Adrian Laguna]

A bomber comes back for another run. So, you're not throwing away a long-range engine with every shot at the enemy.

Except that a bomber engine needs to be sturdy enough to survive multiple uses. You can afford to have missile engines held together with duct tape, chewing gum, and a prayer because they only need to survive until they get to the target.

[andrewgpaul]

A bomber comes back for another run. So, you're not throwing away a long-range engine with every shot at the enemy.

Except that a bomber engine needs to be sturdy enough to survive multiple uses. You can afford to have missile engines held together with duct tape, chewing gum, and a prayer because they only need to survive until they get to the target.

Also, even if all you do is simply take a fighter and replace the cockpit with a missile guidance system, you've instantly doubled the range/delta-V of the thing, since you don't need to save half your fuel to come back again

[Gullible Jones]

A bomber comes back for another run. So, you're not throwing away a long-range engine with every shot at the enemy.

Except that a bomber engine needs to be sturdy enough to survive multiple uses. You can afford to have missile engines held together with duct tape, chewing gum, and a prayer because they only need to survive until they get to the target.

Also, a missile's engine can be much simpler. It doesn't need variable thrust, and it doesn't need to turn on and off.

[Adrian Laguna]

In my setting, I assume space combat ranges of about 1 light second (when they get to choose the encounter range, of course). At this distance, capship lasers can still pretty reliably hit targets, and the beam crosses the gap in of course one second.

If you think hit-rates similar to those of historical dreadnoughts, that is 2-4%, are acceptable, then you can have your battle occur as far away as 10-15 light seconds. Which makes any sub-light weapons other than missiles, which can be spammed in huge quantities, damn near worthless.

[General Soontir Fel]

A bomber comes back for another run. So, you're not throwing away a long-range engine with every shot at the enemy.

Except that a bomber engine needs to be sturdy enough to survive multiple uses. You can afford to have missile engines held together with duct tape, chewing gum, and a prayer because they only need to survive until they get to the target.

So it all depends on the relative expense of the engines. BTW, I was assuming that bombers were FTL, and that FTL engines are a lot more expensive than sublight ones, so one really shouldn't be wasteful with them, In that context, bombers would be preferable.

At pure sublight combat, I agree, missiles would be superior.

Whether bombers and fighters, in that context, are better served by AI or sentient pilots is debatable. But once again, the difference between a bomber and a missile is not that the bomber has a crew, it's that it comes back.

[Nephtys]

A bomber comes back for another run. So, you're not throwing away a long-range engine with every shot at the enemy.

Except that a bomber engine needs to be sturdy enough to survive multiple uses. You can afford to have missile engines held together with duct tape, chewing gum, and a prayer because they only need to survive until they get to the target.

Also, even if all you do is simply take a fighter and replace the cockpit with a missile guidance system, you've instantly doubled the range/delta-V of the thing, since you don't need to save half your fuel to come back again

Unless the ship itself costs enough that you don't want to throw it away. Crew lives aren't the only reason to preserve something. Tossing away a multibillion dollar missile bus may be less attractive than designing one with less operational range but is more than capable of coming home for another mission.

[NecronLord]

And if the jump-drive breaks down at the destination point or in the middle of hostile space...?

You're fucked. But you're probably fucked anyway, unless it's a very rugged thing you can repair easily, or (more likely) you're carrying a spare.

In which case, you wouldn't have battleships, you'd have bombers.

And? My point was that there's nothing that has to say a space warship needs a huge crew that will take up as much of its volume as a cockpit in a small fighter will. So what if one paradigm for this this makes the space warship into a long range bomber?

Little thing called energy density. Ever hear of it?

The only reason a Saturn V is 90% fuel is because it has to be. Because the energy density of chemical fuel is piss-poor compared to the sort of fuel which would make a starship possible in the first place. I really don't know why this has to be explained to you.

The point isn't that it has to be literally a saturn five, (Though that's not out of the question in some sci-fi Iain M Banks' Sleeper Service springs to mind as an example of a warship that's largely engine, and carried a whopping one person and an AI core. They also regularly had all-engine ships {Superlifters, described as 90% engine, Very Fast Pickets, Rapid Offensive Units - the latter basically consisting of engines, weapons, and an AI core, with a comparatively tiny space for a living 'crew'} in what one might call their warfleet.) but that there is no law saying that a space warship needs to have a massive crew. To use Star Wars examples, a functional space warship could be almost all engine and gun, like, say The Tarkin or the Darksabre.

Yes, in space opera, energy density will be higher, meaning a moon rocket doesn't need to be so big, but that doesn't mean that a ship consisting largely of engines is out of the question, even ignoring the possibility of relativistic travel being required, or holdovers from that time, (For a start, an all engine ship, if you have an FTL system that's improved by adding more drives and keeping overall mass or volume down, as in, say, Warp Drive, can serve as a first response vessel, a pursuit ship, a courier, or numerou other things.

You seem to be saying that somehow, a starship must have a crew-space:volume ratio that's larger than that of a manned fighter. Why?

[Illuminatus Primus]

And if the jump-drive breaks down at the destination point or in the middle of hostile space...?

And if your SAC bomber's jets fail in the middle of hostile airspace, what then? The mere possibility of failure or stranding does not a poor concept make, in of itself.

[Patrick Degan]

And if the jump-drive breaks down at the destination point or in the middle of hostile space...?

And if your SAC bomber's jets fail in the middle of hostile airspace, what then? The mere possibility of failure or stranding does not a poor concept make, in of itself.

Necron Lord's idea was of a large battleship with only a very small crew. This would not make sense for such a platform. This is why, if FTL were as swift as he suggests that you could jump anywhere, strike, and be back within hours, you would be thinking more along the lines of bombers rather than battleships.

[Patrick Degan]

Whoops, could a mod remove the redundant post, please?

[Patrick Degan]

The point isn't that it has to be literally a saturn five, (Though that's not out of the question in some sci-fi Iain M Banks' Sleeper Service springs to mind as an example of a warship that's largely engine, and carried a whopping one person and an AI core. They also regularly had all-engine ships {Superlifters, described as 90% engine, Very Fast Pickets, Rapid Offensive Units - the latter basically consisting of engines, weapons, and an AI core, with a comparatively tiny space for a living 'crew'} in what one might call their warfleet.) but that there is no law saying that a space warship needs to have a massive crew. To use Star Wars examples, a functional space warship could be almost all engine and gun, like, say The Tarkin or the Darksabre.

Yes, in space opera, energy density will be higher, meaning a moon rocket doesn't need to be so big, but that doesn't mean that a ship consisting largely of engines is out of the question, even ignoring the possibility of relativistic travel being required, or holdovers from that time, (For a start, an all engine ship, if you have an FTL system that's improved by adding more drives and keeping overall mass or volume down, as in, say, Warp Drive, can serve as a first response vessel, a pursuit ship, a courier, or numerous other things.

You seem to be saying that somehow, a starship must have a crew-space:volume ratio that's larger than that of a manned fighter. Why?

If you want a ship designed to sustain itself in the field for weeks/months, carry a large number of troops, and be able to execute missions ranging from fleet engagement to planetary assault, which is the typical mission profile for a stardestroyer, that is going to require a large crew of engineers and support personnel to maintain the ship and its systems as well as the troop contingent. If, on the other hand, your space warfare consists entirely of hit-and-run strikes on planetary targets and MAD, you're back to the bomber paradigm. But then, the problem with bombers is that you're wasting energy and resources sustaining a crew for such a small platform in the first place —which is a strike against the concept of manned space fighters as well.

[NecronLord]

Necron Lord's idea was of a large battleship with only a very small crew.

You're missing the point. That was one example I gave of a paradigm where masses of equipment do not need to be used for crew support. My point is that it is an assumption that a larger part of a ship's volume will be dedicated to supporting the crew than in an fighter, and by changing our assumptions about the battleship - laucrehulk style automation, self repair systems, short duration missions, or what have you - we can flip that on its head and say that the crew pod for a large starship need only be a small portion of its overall volume.

[NecronLord]

Whoops, could a mod remove the redundant post, please?

Done.

If you want a ship designed to sustain itself in the field for weeks/months, carry a large number of troops, and be able to execute missions ranging from fleet engagement to planetary assault, which is the typical mission profile for a stardestroyer,

Thankfully we're not just talking about Star Destroyers, but manned space fighters and starhips in general. And yes, if you have a large contingent of (organic) soldiers, obviously you're going to need appropriate life support.

that is going to require a large crew of engineers and support personnel to maintain the ship and its systems

Really? Again, it depends on what automation you assume. To come back to Star Wars again, they have the ability to make destroyer vessels with miniscule life support requirements compared to Star Destroyers. And not just Lucrehulks, dedicated ground up warships like the Providence-class, which carries over a million ground soldiers, is capable of undertaking patrol missions, and seems to fill the role of Star Destroyer quite adequately, have crew numbers on the order of a whopping six hundred.

as well as the troop contingent. If, on the other hand, your space warfare consists entirely of hit-and-run strikes on planetary targets and MAD, you're back to the bomber paradigm. But then, the problem with bombers is that you're wasting energy and resources sustaining a crew for such a small platform in the first place —which is a strike against the concept of manned space fighters as well.

The concept of manned space warfare is inherently questionable, especially where advanced automation exists. I'm not questioning manned space fighters, because the post I originally quoted took them as a given.

[Patrick Degan]

that is going to require a large crew of engineers and support personnel to maintain the ship and its systems

Really? Again, it depends on what automation you assume.

Automation breaks down, people don't.

[NecronLord]

Automation breaks down, people don't.

Pardon?

[Uraniun235]

Further, automation is a great deal less vulnerable to hard radiation than organic tissue.

Ultimately it comes down to what degree of artificial intelligence is assumed. Below a certain level, yes, human presence will be required to keep things running on track. Above a certain level, however, it becomes feasible to have a horde of repair droids taking care of the ship, as well as a multi-redundant computer complex with auto-direction capability.

[montypython]

If AI units comprise the body of a ship, the biologicals would be the gut bacteria in it.

[Patrick Degan]

Automation breaks down, people don't.

Pardon?

Cuuuuuute. Yes, let's include a catalogue of diseases on the assumption that this is what a starship crew could regularly expect to die from to prove... what, exactly?

[Rye]

Presumably that the incredibly complex organic machines known as homo sapiens sapiens are prone to damage and breaking down.

[Nephtys]

Presumably that the incredibly complex organic machines known as homo sapiens sapiens are prone to damage and breaking down.

People are self-repairing for all but the most severe of cases. A machine is not. Not to mention minor defects (loose bits, poor maintenance) will take out a machine, while people need occasional hospitalization for whatever, every few months.

Unless you have hyperadvanced android AIs, with the ability to perform every possible manual or mental task assigned to it running your long-endurance capital ship, you probably will want people aboard if possible.

[Junghalli]

I was watching ROTS the other day, and after observing the Jedi starfighters spiral past a Republic cruiser in the opening scene, it occurred to me that, in the vacuum of space, the ship with the larger engines would be faster, as opposed to the ship with the least mass.

Unless you're using an engine that doesn't scale down well a smaller ship can be made faster than a larger one because of the ant problem. Mass increases faster than structural strength with size, so a bigger ship will be under more strain during a given acceleration than a small ship.

[Ford Prefect]

People are self-repairing for all but the most severe of cases. A machine is not.

Not yet, anyway. Especially when you're talking a setting which may be hundreds or thousands of years into the future.

Honestly, from a perfectly realistic point of view, space fighters don't make sense. I went to an awful lot of trouble to put together a universe which could justify space fighters, as well as enormous clouds of missiles. While it does work in my mind, to be honest it is extremely contrived. Ultimately, you might just be able to place a cap-ship killero n a missile, and load them onto a manned platform, but there really doesn't need to be that person, except for entertainment pruposes.

[NecronLord]

Cuuuuuute. Yes, let's include a catalogue of diseases on the assumption that this is what a starship crew could regularly expect to die from to prove... what, exactly?

That you're making the completely unjustified assumption that a maintainance bot is going to be less durable than a human. Despite, one assumes, being made of superior materials. Never mind that the maint-bot will also require simpler supplies, and require a less controlled enviroment.

People are self-repairing for all but the most severe of cases. A machine is not.

A machine can be rapidly repaired with new components. A human can be laid up for weeks, and even if you do have cybernetics capable of repairing a human as quickly as a robot, they're still not going to adjust to them as well. And putting a cybernetic arm on a human will (so long as they qualify as human) always be more complex than putting a new arm on a modular maint-bot.

And no, humans are most certainly not self repairing by any decent standard. They can recover unaided from minor ailments like colds and small cuts and such - maint-bots are flat out immune to those, something that'll scar your hand hideously will barely dent quality steel -On the other hand, If you lose a leg, you've lost your leg, and if you're not treated, you'll die. A tiny puncture can cause you to bleed out and die. A moderate blow to the head can cause lethal damage. In comparison, any sanely designed maint-bot will be tremendously rugged. If I hit a human with a sledgehammer, and a forklift truck, I rather think the human will come off worse.

You could happily use all the space you'd have for food and living space for a maintainance crew with spare parts for maint-bots, and you'll still be saving space by not needing the same extensive water and air recycling systems.

Not to mention minor defects (loose bits, poor maintenance) will take out a machine, while people need occasional hospitalization for whatever, every few months.

Which is more durable? The one who can only survive relatively modest impacts, requires continuous supply of fire-causing gas, and is prone to stress, or the one that's just a robot designed to fix a part of the ship? Never mind that a maintainance bot for routine tasks will be stronger, never tire (for a start, you can have at least three maintainance bots, which work almost continuosly, as opposed to three crewmen, who work eight hour shifts)

Unless you have hyperadvanced android AIs, with the ability to perform every possible manual or mental task assigned to it running your long-endurance capital ship, you probably will want people aboard if possible.

People =!= massive crew. Yes. You may (or may not) need some sapient entity on board to think up creative responses to problems. That doesn't mean you need a large crew to repair the engines.