Star Fighters: Who the hell needs Em?

[Knobbyboy88]

Even if a star figher's propulsion systems were to only be made in direct "proportion" to those of a larger capital ship, it would still most require a disproportionate amount of the fighter's space to mount them its smaller frame. Minaturization only goes so far.

[Knobbyboy88]

Even if a star figher's propulsion systems were to only be made in direct "proportion" to those of a larger capital ship, it would still most require a disproportionate amount of the fighter's space to mount them its smaller frame. Minaturization only goes so far.

Correction: "it would still most likely require a disproportionate amount of the fighter's space to mount them on its smaller frame."

[bz249]

What are these 'recon craft' you're all talking about?

There is no stealth in space.

If the spacecraft are torchships, their thrust power is several terawatts. This means the exhaust is so intense that it could be detected from Alpha Centauri. By a passive sensor.

The Space Shuttle's much weaker main engines could be detected past the orbit of Pluto. The Space Shuttle's manoeuvering thrusters could be seen as far as the asteroid belt. And even a puny ship using ion drive to thrust at a measly 1/1000 of a g could be spotted at one astronomical unit.

This is with current off-the-shelf technology. Presumably future technology would be better.

The life support for your crew emits enough heat to be detected at an exceedingly long range. The 285 Kelvin habitat module will stand out like a search-light against the three Kelvin background of outer space.

Isn't much call for manned recon drones when you can see everyone in the system and make a good guess as to what kind of ship it is based on its radiation profile.

And to forestall your next question, decoys do not work particularly well either. More specifically, a decoy capable of fooling the enemy would wind up costing almost as much as a full ship.

Just to make sure that we are both on the same page here, I am talking about time frames of weeks to months. Such as found when a task force weeks or months away from their target, attempting to fool the [enemy] observers into thinking that your are a force of twenty warships, when you are actually a force of one warship and nineteen decoys.

Seriously, people need to read Atomic Rocket before...well, anything. ;)

And that's why we can detect Earth-like planets from their emission... wait we are unable to do this because they are in the proximity of something with much higher luminosity.

[Warsie]

Sounds like it would be cheaper to just send a droid dedicated entirely to reconnaisance. No extra cost with weapons that may not do anything to cap ships.

would it be remote-controlled; there might be a delay in communication unless an ansible is used. A manned craft would be useful in more thinking and following, deciding which targets to follow, etc

What's the probe intelligence in said universe?

On second thought, a cap ship would probably have better sensors anyway.

correct; but that might be considered an unnecessary force projection depending on the characteristics of said sci-fi universe, a cap ship might be considered too threatening to some, etc.

and McC, I remember that site and its' articles on starfighters, thx for the reminder. But doesn't that tend to place a lot of things in a hard sci-fi way; rather than the space opers?

[Warsie]

i forgot, this is in a universe involving faster-than-light travel as well, like Star Wars. far-range recon.

and I mispelled Space Opera in the last post; a typo.

[bz249]

Anyway what is hard sci-fi? For someone in the early 19th century a steampunk world could have been a hard sci-fi and modern day earth, with this handwavium thing called electricity (used for everything from communication via lighting and heating to motors for heavy machinery) is a pretty soft sci-fi... yet modern day earth seems quite realistic.

[Warsie]

Anyway what is hard sci-fi? For someone in the early 19th century a steampunk world could have been a hard sci-fi and modern day earth, with this handwavium thing called electricity (used for everything from communication via lighting and heating to motors for heavy machinery) is a pretty soft sci-fi... yet modern day earth seems quite realistic.

"Hard" sci-fi is more technically plausible using the current physics and the like, based off what people know now
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_science_fiction

[bz249]

"Hard" sci-fi is more technically plausible using the current physics and the like, based off what people know now
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_science_fiction

I knew the definition what I would like to point out that world as we know today is a pretty soft sci-fi from a 19th century viewpoint... so forcing to apply the current knowledge level is questionable in my opinion, especially since it is almost impossible to create a reasonable spacefaring civilization with any foreseeable development (on the current scientific base).

[Xess]

And that's why we can detect Earth-like planets from their emission... wait we are unable to do this because they are in the proximity of something with much higher luminosity.

That's at interstellar ranges. In-system the ship would have to be within a few degrees of the sun in order to be hard to find.

[Ender]

And that's why we can detect Earth-like planets from their emission... wait we are unable to do this because they are in the proximity of something with much higher luminosity.

Don't be fucking stupid. There is a massive difference between locating something with the luminosity of a planet from a single point in space from lightyears away and picking up a multiterrawatt/m^2 source from several points at a distance of lightminutes.

[Vendetta]

And that's why we can detect Earth-like planets from their emission... wait we are unable to do this because they are in the proximity of something with much higher luminosity.

That's at interstellar ranges. In-system the ship would have to be within a few degrees of the sun in order to be hard to find.

You'd expect tactics to develop around that, approaches made shielded by planets or stars to mask emissions. Might not conceal an attack completely, but might disguise the strength of the attack, allowing for some element of surprise.

[Cykeisme]

I knew the definition what I would like to point out that world as we know today is a pretty soft sci-fi from a 19th century viewpoint... so forcing to apply the current knowledge level is questionable in my opinion, especially since it is almost impossible to create a reasonable spacefaring civilization with any foreseeable development (on the current scientific base).

You've just described what soft science-fiction is, you moron.

This is even disregarding your stupid notion that the fundamental laws of physics are going to change in a few hundred years.

Even per 19th century Newtonian physics, the goddamn facts stated on this thread regarding starships of any size obeying the same laws of inertia and acceleration remain. In fact, the science discussed in this thread will be well-understood by a 19th century physicist.

[Cykeisme]

And that's why we can detect Earth-like planets from their emission... wait we are unable to do this because they are in the proximity of something with much higher luminosity.

That's at interstellar ranges. In-system the ship would have to be within a few degrees of the sun in order to be hard to find.

You'd expect tactics to develop around that, approaches made shielded by planets or stars to mask emissions. Might not conceal an attack completely, but might disguise the strength of the attack, allowing for some element of surprise.

True, but in the context of this thread, the point is moot.

A ship of any size can hide behind a planet or a star, be it capital ship sized or starfighter sized.

[Coalition]

Even if a star figher's propulsion systems were to only be made in direct "proportion" to those of a larger capital ship, it would still most require a disproportionate amount of the fighter's space to mount them its smaller frame. Minaturization only goes so far.

Fighters have the following advantages:
* higher surface:volume ratios - this means they can dissipate more heat than a larger vessel, allowing them to run a hotter reactor (since power is limited by volume, but heat dissipation is by surface area of the reactor). This also allows the fighter to have more weaponry, as it can dissipate heat faster than a larger similar vessel.
* structural advantage - a 100 ton fighter requires a smaller fraction of its mass to be used for structural mass for the same acceleration than a larger ship. I.e. if a 100 ton fighter used 2 tons of mass for structure, a 100,000 ton ship would be using 20,000 tons (if I have my math right, the vessel is 1000 times bigger, but the structure is only 100 times stronger, so you need 10 times the structure). This is assuming the same materials are used for both.
(plus others already discussed and that I forgot)

Capital ships have the following advantages
* unjammable communications - fighters need radio or laser communications, a warship can have fiber-optics running through its hull to keep everyone and everything aware
* better sensors - 10 fighters can carry a 1 ton sensor each, but the ship can carry a 10 ton sensor and get better performance out of it than the 10 smaller sensors individually.
* damage resistance - damage enough to destroy a fighter can be handled by the ship. This leads to a steady loss of firepower for the fighters, vs fairly constant firepower for the ship, then pop. This also allows the ship to do self-repair while both forces break after the first firing pass, and the fighter pilots are regrouping for attack.
* sensor utilization - a warship can have one sensor lock onto a target, and every weapon can be fired at it with that sensor's benefit. Fighters need to lock on with individual sensors, or use the datalink setup.
* repair advantage - a capital ship carrying the same fraction of its hull in repair equipment will have more variety in repair tools than a fighter. This will translate into longer deployment capability due to flexibility.

These are my thoughts on capital ships vs fighters.

[Warsie]

what I would like to point out that world as we know today is a pretty soft sci-fi from a 19th century viewpoint... so forcing to apply the current knowledge level is questionable in my opinion, especially since it is almost impossible to create a reasonable spacefaring civilization with any foreseeable development (on the current scientific base).

I agree; many sci-fi things end up becoming science fact (Atomic Bombs for one)

[Knobbyboy88]

Fighters have the following advantages:
* higher surface:volume ratios - this means they can dissipate more heat than a larger vessel, allowing them to run a hotter reactor (since power is limited by volume, but heat dissipation is by surface area of the reactor). This also allows the fighter to have more weaponry, as it can dissipate heat faster than a larger similar vessel.
* structural advantage - a 100 ton fighter requires a smaller fraction of its mass to be used for structural mass for the same acceleration than a larger ship. I.e. if a 100 ton fighter used 2 tons of mass for structure, a 100,000 ton ship would be using 20,000 tons (if I have my math right, the vessel is 1000 times bigger, but the structure is only 100 times stronger, so you need 10 times the structure). This is assuming the same materials are used for both.
(plus others already discussed and that I forgot)

I'm going to assume that you're correct (because I'm sure you are ). However, if you wanted a fighter to actually perform in the established role of a fighter (i.e. be able to move considerably faster than a capital ship to engage targets outside of a capital ship's normal engagement range) you'd need a hell of a lot more than an engine "proportional" to that of a capital ship. You'd want the fighter to be faster than a capital ship, and as such, it would have to field a propulsion system significantly more powerful in proportion than a capital ship's normally would be. Otherwise, you'd just be building the equivalent of an underpowered patrol boat in space.

[Ender]

And that's why we can detect Earth-like planets from their emission... wait we are unable to do this because they are in the proximity of something with much higher luminosity.

That's at interstellar ranges. In-system the ship would have to be within a few degrees of the sun in order to be hard to find.

You'd expect tactics to develop around that, approaches made shielded by planets or stars to mask emissions. Might not conceal an attack completely, but might disguise the strength of the attack, allowing for some element of surprise.

Not really. In addition to the heat, the exhaust is moving at a high velocity. This will result in doppler shift (which also distinguishes it from the local star) and the luminosity of the exhaust gives you the mass flow. From this you can get acceleration and mass, and the doppler shift also gives you vector.

Finding the ship isn't tricky, passive sensors do that real well. A targeting lock will be harder, that typically requires active sensors. This is where fighters could be useful, acting akin to artillery spotters.

[Ender]

I knew the definition what I would like to point out that world as we know today is a pretty soft sci-fi from a 19th century viewpoint... so forcing to apply the current knowledge level is questionable in my opinion, especially since it is almost impossible to create a reasonable spacefaring civilization with any foreseeable development (on the current scientific base).

Jesus, I missed this little nugget of mindlessness. Exactly how the fuck do you equate "invokes principles they didn't understand at the time but had information indicating existed" with "openly violates scientific theories repeatedly and empirically proven to be true that much of our current technology is based on"?

[Cykeisme]

Hmm, sounds like good points, Coalition.
The relations between surface area and volume can be beneficial for multiple smaller craft; conversely, scaling things up have their disadvantages.

[Warsie]

There's also range in capital shps' advantage possibly.

And something I forgot, maybe it is simply a trade-off. Depending on universes, for example the ogame universe some might only attack with capital ships and no fighters, some might attack with swarms of fighters, and some might attempt a balance and ration of capital ships to fighters.

That can be somewhat related to symbolism and morale; as in people (the enemy, the side fighting) might not care as much if some of the screen of fighter craft go down instead of a cap ship; a cap ship is more symbolic of power and rallying, morale. The same losses may happen in a battle, but people would, due to pride and the like choose fighter casualties rather than a cap ship destroyed. Phallic symbolism too.

[Knobbyboy88]

Phallic symbolism too.

Hahaha. I hadn't thought of that.

[Braedley]

<snip>

I'm going to assume that you're correct (because I'm sure you are ). However, if you wanted a fighter to actually perform in the established role of a fighter (i.e. be able to move considerably faster than a capital ship to engage targets outside of a capital ship's normal engagement range) you'd need a hell of a lot more than an engine "proportional" to that of a capital ship. You'd want the fighter to be faster than a capital ship, and as such, it would have to field a propulsion system significantly more powerful in proportion than a capital ship's normally would be. Otherwise, you'd just be building the equivalent of an underpowered patrol boat in space.

We've been saying as much. Of course the power to weight ratio for a fighter needs to be larger than that of a capital ship. As I mentioned in my last post, this is not hard to do. Another important aspect of a space fighter is that for any space combat where the absolute velocity of the combatants is high but the relative velocities are low, than the absolute speed of fighters launched from carriers (which are usually capital ships) will still have the same absolute velocity as the ship it's launched from (save the accelerations made during launch). Given that a fighter needs a higher acceleration in order to get back to the carrier (otherwise the carrier would need to stop accelerating, perhaps more on this in another post), it becomes obvious that a fighter will attain higher velocities than a carrier.

Also, the case for having a squadron of fighters on board a capital ship is that your enemy has a squadron on his. It's been shown throughout history that the best defence for a fighter attack is to send your own fighters up there.

[Coalition]

Thanks Cykeisme.

I'm going to assume that you're correct (because I'm sure you are :lol: ). However, if you wanted a fighter to actually perform in the established role of a fighter (i.e. be able to move considerably faster than a capital ship to engage targets outside of a capital ship's normal engagement range) you'd need a hell of a lot more than an engine "proportional" to that of a capital ship. You'd want the fighter to be faster than a capital ship, and as such, it would have to field a propulsion system significantly more powerful in proportion than a capital ship's normally would be. Otherwise, you'd just be building the equivalent of an underpowered patrol boat in space.

The 100 ton fighter, for the same proportion of mass as a 100,000 ton ship, can have acceleration 10 times higher due to the advantage a smaller structure provides. You need a larger engine for its size to get that advantage of course, but if you need a relative advantage, there it is.

Reactors will have similar problems with larger sizes. I.e. assume a 100 meter reactor is operating at Power level P, where P is just below the output needed to melt the interior. The reactor is doubled in length, width and height, theoretically allowing it to produce 8 times the power. However, the surface of the reactor is only 4 times greater, meaning you can only get half the Power per ton of reactor. Smaller vessels can therefore get more firepower per ton this way. The 100,000 ton vessel would only have half the firepower of one thousand of the 100 ton fighters due to this.

Of course, a .1 ton missile can have an acceleration 10 times higher than the fighter, if it has access to the same engine capability. This could eventually place a lower limit on missile and fighter sizes, where the minimum size of the engine comes into play. You would have armed drones with energy or ballistic weapons, rather than armed drones firing small missiles. If the drone is expensive enough, they may try to recover it, but if not, you are not sending each fighter pilot on a suicide mission.

The other fun is armor and other protection. The fighter massing 100 tons might have 10 tons allocated to 'protection'. This can be a variety of things, but I am sticking with armor and shields for now. The 100,000 ton vessel can also have 10,000 tons allocated to the same protection. However, since the larger vessel has 100 times the surface area protected by 1000 times the defenses, they are relatively 10 times stronger.

You get even more fun trying to compare shield power generation being stronger for having a smaller surface area to protect, versus the lower power per ton being provided by the larger reactors .

Phallic symbolism too.

Syreen Penetrator from Star Control 2 comes to mind.

[RedImperator]

We've been saying as much. Of course the power to weight ratio for a fighter needs to be larger than that of a capital ship. As I mentioned in my last post, this is not hard to do. Another important aspect of a space fighter is that for any space combat where the absolute velocity of the combatants is high but the relative velocities are low, than the absolute speed of fighters launched from carriers (which are usually capital ships) will still have the same absolute velocity as the ship it's launched from (save the accelerations made during launch).

This entire argument applies even more to missiles. In fact, every single argument for space fighters works better for unmanned missiles. The exception are "fighters" that act like Coast Guard cutters or AWACS in space--and then I wonder why you would call them a "fighter".

Given that a fighter needs a higher acceleration in order to get back to the carrier (otherwise the carrier would need to stop accelerating, perhaps more on this in another post), it becomes obvious that a fighter will attain higher velocities than a carrier.

Orders of magnitude faster, like in naval aviation? If not, your analogy collapses. If so, a missile gets you four times the delta-v for the same price, not including the cost of the pilot.

Also, the case for having a squadron of fighters on board a capital ship is that your enemy has a squadron on his. It's been shown throughout history that the best defence for a fighter attack is to send your own fighters up there.

This is like saying that history has shown the best defense against heavy cavalry are pikemen, so aircraft should mount lances on their noses and fly in tight squares to fend off bombers. There is no historical form of combat that is analogous to space combat. The closest I can think of is submarine vs. submarine warfare and 1) unlike underwater, there is no stealth in space, and 2) submarines don't attack each other by launching one-man minisubs.

Anyway what is hard sci-fi? For someone in the early 19th century a steampunk world could have been a hard sci-fi and modern day earth, with this handwavium thing called electricity (used for everything from communication via lighting and heating to motors for heavy machinery) is a pretty soft sci-fi... yet modern day earth seems quite realistic.

Electricity was a known phenomenon in the early 19th century, if poorly understood. A better analogy would be nuclear power, which from an early 19th century point of view violates conservation of energy, conservation of mass, and the indivisibility of the atom. Unfortunately, your analogy doesn't hold up at all because 1) in the 200 years since then, principles unknown or barely known at the time have been discovered and vigorously tested, allowing us to say with much more confidence what is and isn't allowable within the laws of physics, and 2) most of the "science" in soft sci-fi is the equivalent of your 19th century author writing that humans can fly by flapping their arms really hard. It's not squeezing into the gaps in modern science and wildly speculating; rather, the authors either handwave away bedrock scientific principles ("Thank goodness Einstein was wrong!") or are simply ignorant of them entirely.

I knew the definition what I would like to point out that world as we know today is a pretty soft sci-fi from a 19th century viewpoint... so forcing to apply the current knowledge level is questionable in my opinion,

So since it's impossible to know what the future will actually look like, that's a defense for writing nonsense. Let's apply this to other genres: "Since it's impossible to know exactly what everyday life was like in the Roman Empire, I can go ahead and write a historical novel where Romans watched Desperate Housewives."

especially since it is almost impossible to create a reasonable spacefaring civilization with any foreseeable development (on the current scientific base).

I don't know what this last line betrays more: your ignorance or your lack of imagination.

[Junghalli]

If not, your analogy collapses. If so, a missile gets you four times the delta-v for the same price, not including the cost of the pilot.

And that's very conservative. The delta V you gain will actually be more than that, because you can eliminate the mass of the pilot and his associated life support, cockpit frame etc. and replace it with an undoubtedly vastly more compact guidance computer. You just lost a good couple of hundred kg of mass, which you can replace with an equivalent mass in fuel.