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

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

Then by definition any system with a sufficient amount of objects in it is crowded.

That's presumably true for some set of definitions - what are you getting at?

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

That's presumably true for some set of definitions - what are you getting at?

If the sensors by definition can see every ship above a certain point within a second, then that is a crowd. Just as if I can see several score people at once in Starbucks then Starbucks is crowded. And it is a contradiction to say that a crowd is impossible. And equally to the point, if sensors are developed to the extent that they can see a whole system at once then clearly the only decision to make is to fire or not to fire and that is not a computer's decision. Furthermore, if a fleet enters in-system close enough that it can in fact see every ship at once within a light second, it has entered in circumstance where it has risked being caught off guard by system defenses which can as easily be automatized as fleet drones and therefore do not fall asleep. Therefore a fleet will not wish insert close enough where every object can be seen within a light-second. On the other hand if in fact the fleet inserts a light hour at least away from the primary it has good reason to have fighters to allow the fleet to see what is in front. And at least some of those have to be piloted by humans as it has been admitted that AI is not sufficient to the duty described several posts up.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

If the sensors by definition can see every ship above a certain point within a second, then that is a crowd. Just as if I can see several score people at once in Starbucks then Starbucks is crowded. And it is a contradiction to say that a crowd is impossible. And equally to the point, if sensors are developed to the extent that they can see a whole system at once then clearly the only decision to make is to fire or not to fire and that is not a computer's decision.

Every sentence of this is confounding.

I dunno what "see every ship above a certain point within a second" means.

Your definition of 'crowded' being 'multiple entities are visible' is odd, but in any case certainly leaves no example of the statement you call contradictory. (My prior remarks were to do with the apparent implication that the vehicles were close enough to make tracking or distinguishing a problem, which is absurd, not close enough to see each other which is utterly inevitable.)

And finally, the assertion that there are no decisions to be made in combat where detection is not in question is simply ridiculous.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Every sentence of this is confounding.

I dunno what "see every ship above a certain point within a second" means.

Your definition of 'crowded' being 'multiple entities are visible' is odd, but in any case certainly leaves no example of the statement you call contradictory. (My prior remarks were to do with the apparent implication that the vehicles were close enough to make tracking or distinguishing a problem, which is absurd, not close enough to see each other which is utterly inevitable.)

And finally, the assertion that there are no decisions to be made in combat where detection is not in question is simply ridiculous.

No because I can see everyone in Starbucks. If there are one hundred people there I can see it. That does not mean I can see the one person who has a suicide vest.

And as crowded is a generic term it is hard to do find a better definition. The definition of crowd would depend upon the capacities of the platforms and the space available. A crowd of schooners on the Grand Banks is not the same as a crowd of people at a political rally. And it is hard to say what you are describing is not a crowd.

If there is a crowd of schooners visible to each other on the Grand Banks and dozens of them are fishermen and one is a rum runner the cutter still has a bother sorting them out. And the fact that the Grand Banks are big and schooners are bigger then people and telescopes see far are simply factors in defining a crowd.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

Furthermore, if a fleet enters in-system close enough that it can in fact see every ship at once within a light second, it has entered in circumstance where it has risked being caught off guard by system defenses which can as easily be automatized as fleet drones and therefore do not fall asleep. Therefore a fleet will not wish insert close enough where every object can be seen within a light-second. On the other hand if in fact the fleet inserts a light hour at least away from the primary it has good reason to have fighters to allow the fleet to see what is in front. And at least some of those have to be piloted by humans as it has been admitted that AI is not sufficient to the duty described several posts up.

You're making a lot of weird assumptions here, but the weirdest is about sensors.

It isn't hard to see things in space at a light hour or more. You don't need or even benefit from having a fighter a light-hour in front - it probably can't see as much as the larger ship, even.

You do, of course, get benefits from having fire-control done an hour of light-lag closer to the target, though.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

No because I can see everyone in Starbucks. If there are one hundred people there I can see it. That does not mean I can see the one person who has a suicide vest.

And as crowded is a generic term it is hard to do find a better definition. The definition of crowd would depend upon the capacities of the platforms and the space available. A crowd of schooners on the Grand Banks is not the same as a crowd of people at a political rally. And it is hard to say what you are describing is not a crowd.

You can't see everyone in a Starbucks with a hundred people in it. They're all hidden behind each other. Chances are you never get a clear view of the vest.

Meanwhile, in space you get a clear view of everyone. And while maybe a human brain gets saturated by a hundred subjects to consider, a computer has no such difficulty. Manned or unmanned the ship'll have the computational assets to keep track of the lot - and at least the unmanned one will be able to actually give each some consideration.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

You're making a lot of weird assumptions here, but the weirdest is about sensors.

It isn't hard to see things in space at a light hour or more. You don't need or even benefit from having a fighter a light-hour in front - it probably can't see as much as the larger ship, even.

You do, of course, get benefits from having fire-control done an hour of light-lag closer to the target, though.

It is hard to see things at a light hour or more because that was an hour ago when it is processed.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

It is hard to see things at a light hour or more because that was an hour ago when it is processed.

That doesn't make them hard to see, it makes your information out of date.

But having a fighter forward doesn't get you the information any sooner. Unless you're assuming lightspeed sensors but FTL tactical communications.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

You can't see everyone in a Starbucks with a hundred people in it. They're all hidden behind each other. Chances are you never get a clear view of the vest.

Meanwhile, in space you get a clear view of everyone. And while maybe a human brain gets saturated by a hundred subjects to consider, a computer has no such difficulty. Manned or unmanned the ship'll have the computational assets to keep track of the lot - and at least the unmanned one will be able to actually give each some consideration.

And the computer has to decide which of the lot which assets it has the computational assets to track and of which it actually gives some consideration which is worth vectoring friendly units toward. And it cannot see what the ship is carrying anymore then I can see the suicide vest because it is in the hold.

And I can see more or less every schooner on the portion of the Grand Banks covered by my spy glass and I still cannot tell which is a fisherman and which a rum runner with my spy glass and still must use Intelligence Analysis.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

And the computer has to decide which of the lot which assets it has the computational assets to track and of which it actually gives some consideration which is worth vectoring friendly units toward. And it cannot see what the ship is carrying anymore then I can see the suicide vest because it is in the hold.

...What scenario are we dealing with, here? Seriously, what assets are performing what mission? You're now talking about an AI 'vectoring friendly assets'. Clearly we're no longer discussing fighter pilots. So...what, exactly?

Originally Posted by jason taylor

And I can see more or less every schooner on the portion of the Grand Banks covered by my spy glass and I still cannot tell which is a fisherman and which a rum runner with my spy glass and still must use Intelligence Analysis.

Same question with bells on, and what data are you proposing to use for your intelligence analysis anyhow?