[Space] Fighter-to-ship ratio: what is it and why? - Page 5

Rupert · 08-31-2007, 04:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SavageDoc

Historically small craft both naval and air have had many roles.

Recon. Find the other guy before he finds you. Maybe this includes being first in on jumping or wormhole-ing.

Patrol and Pursuit. Kill the other guy's Recon force. This is why WWII American 'fighters' have the P designation.

Shipping Strike. Attack the other guy's mobile targets. Dive bombers, torpedo bombers, anti ship missile dropping, torpedo boats, and their equivalents.

Ground Strike. Attack the other guy's stationary targets. Maybe his planetary shields laugh at your kinetic bombardment, or doing so is against the laws of war.

Combat Air Patrol. Kill the other guy's shipping strike.

Traffic control and policing. Customs inspection, traffic enforcement, general policing of civilian traffic and shipping.

Escort. Escorting your strike flights/forces whether against shipping or ground targets.

One thing to remember is that, unless the tech is really odd, space fighters are not really the equivalent of aircraft vs ships, but torpedo/missile boats vs bigger ships, because they both move in the same medium using the same propulsion systems.

ed_209a · 08-31-2007, 07:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mailanka

The Zeroeth Law: Nobody wants to read a sci-story about the angst ridden antics of a missile's computer guidance system.

This reminds me of a blurb (I think from a THS book) about a guy having an online relationship with an advanced anti-ship missile...

Pragmatic · 08-31-2007, 07:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ed_209a

This reminds me of a blurb (I think from a THS book) about a guy having an online relationship with an advanced anti-ship missile...

I was going to say she was a ship, but it turns out you're right: it's the AI of an autonomous kill vehicle (AKV; basically, a kinetic kill anti-ship missile), as talked about in Deep Beyond.

It goes by the name Charlie Sparrowhawk, or Sparrow when posing as a human online.

Fred Brackin · 08-31-2007, 07:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mailanka

We could have big space battles now, if we really wanted, we just don't have a reason to do it, or the big ships up there to do it with. But the tech is definitly all there..

Well, we could nuke or kinetic-kill things in orbit but not in big barrages. it'd be like one or two per day. Not really my idea of a big space battle.

Fred Brackin

Fred Brackin · 08-31-2007, 07:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pragmatic

I was going to say she was a ship, but it turns out you're right: it's the AI of an autonomous kill vehicle (AKV; basically, a kinetic kill anti-ship missile), as talked about in Deep Beyond.

AKVs are usually armed with coilguns that can launch their own kinetic munitions and/or nuclear pumped x-ray laser packages. They have a substantial attack and defense capacity beyond just ramming.

However, they do not have the delta-V to operate at long ranges without a mother-ship.

Looks like a space fighter to me.

Fred Brackin

Mailanka · 08-31-2007, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

Well, we could nuke or kinetic-kill things in orbit but not in big barrages. it'd be like one or two per day. Not really my idea of a big space battle.

Fred Brackin

You make it sound like we CAN'T have space barges floating through the solar system shooting at each other. We certainly have the technology to do so. The reason we don't is that there is little reason to have warships up there, not because it isn't currently feasible.

Lonewulf · 08-31-2007, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mailanka

You make it sound like we CAN'T have space barges floating through the solar system shooting at each other. We certainly have the technology to do so. The reason we don't is that there is little reason to have warships up there, not because it isn't currently feasible.

Well, I perceive that it would be difficult to launch a fully functional warship into space... you'd probably have to equip one that's decently armored or loaded with heavy weapons in space, and fly up the little pieces. But the costs for that would be pretty dang high and be resource-expensive...

SavageDoc · 08-31-2007, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

Well, I perceive that it would be difficult to launch a fully functional warship into space... you'd probably have to equip one that's decently armored or loaded with heavy weapons in space, and fly up the little pieces. But the costs for that would be pretty dang high and be resource-expensive...

Right, because we don't have the need to. Should we have the sudden need to, its stops looking silly right quick. Plowshares are better than swords... until you need a sword.

David Johnston · 08-31-2007, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SavageDoc

Right, because we don't have the need to.

The question is, why would we ever have the need to?

Fred Brackin · 08-31-2007, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SavageDoc

Right, because we don't have the need to. Should we have the sudden need to, its stops looking silly right quick. Plowshares are better than swords... until you need a sword.

Nope, it still looks pretty silly with the shelf technology. The heaviest payload vehicle ever launched into low orbit has a capacity of 100 tons and not one of them is even in production as we speak.

You could turn on the faucets tot eh tune of hundreds of billions per year and it would still be years until you got _anything_ in _low_ orbit.

Sending anything resembling fleets of space barges floating through the solar system would take decades and a lot of technical advances.

You could do it on a hard science basis weith unlimited funding but you can't do it easily and you certainly can't do it quickly. Not having to break the laws of physics is less help than some people think.

Fred Brackin