Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > GURPS

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-31-2007, 04:04 AM   #41
Rupert
 
Rupert's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Wellington, NZ
Default Re: [Space] Fighter-to-ship ratio: what is it and why?

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.
__________________
Rupert Boleyn

"A pessimist is an optimist with a sense of history."
Rupert is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2007, 07:11 AM   #42
ed_209a
 
ed_209a's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Default Re: [Space] Fighter-to-ship ratio: what is it and why?

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...
__________________
“Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.”
- Robert E Howard, "The Tower of the Elephant"
ed_209a is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2007, 07:34 AM   #43
Pragmatic
Ceci n'est pas une tag.
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vancouver, WA (Portland Metro)
Default Re: [Space] Fighter-to-ship ratio: what is it and why?

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.
Pragmatic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2007, 07:47 AM   #44
Fred Brackin
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Default Re: [Space] Fighter-to-ship ratio: what is it and why?

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 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2007, 07:51 AM   #45
Fred Brackin
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Default Re: [Space] Fighter-to-ship ratio: what is it and why?

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
Fred Brackin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2007, 09:03 AM   #46
Mailanka
 
Mailanka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Eindhoven, the Netherlands
Default Re: [Space] Fighter-to-ship ratio: what is it and why?

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.
Mailanka is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2007, 10:22 AM   #47
Lonewulf
 
Lonewulf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: San Antonio, TX
Default Re: [Space] Fighter-to-ship ratio: what is it and why?

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...
__________________
She's like the sunrise
Outshines the moon at night
Precious like starlight
She'll bring in a murderous prize
~Blind Guardian

My Writing.com
Lonewulf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2007, 10:54 AM   #48
SavageDoc
 
SavageDoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Dallas, Texas USA.
Default Re: [Space] Fighter-to-ship ratio: what is it and why?

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.
__________________
-John Moses Browning is my savior

-.45 ACP, because 9mm is still for women and pansies.
SavageDoc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2007, 11:05 AM   #49
David Johnston
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Default Re: [Space] Fighter-to-ship ratio: what is it and why?

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?
David Johnston is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2007, 11:50 AM   #50
Fred Brackin
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Default Re: [Space] Fighter-to-ship ratio: what is it and why?

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
Fred Brackin is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:52 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.