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

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

...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?

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

1. If there are no friendly assets to be vectored closer all you are doing is watching.

2. Good question. How do you tell any of the thousands of decisions you make every day that are far more complicated then "what is the silhouette of this vehicle?" How do you tell when it is safe to cross the street or not?

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

1. If there are no friendly assets to be vectored closer all you are doing is watching.

2. Good question. How do you tell any of the thousands of decisions you make every day that are far more complicated then "what is the silhouette of this vehicle?" How do you tell when it is safe to cross the street or not?

Okay, you're not engaging with the question at all, and you seem to have moved the goalposts to somewhere you won't even identify.

I'm pretty sure you're not talking about fighter piloting anymore. But if you won't say what you are talking about, I don't see anything that can be discussed.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Okay, you're not engaging with the question at all, and you seem to have moved the goalposts to somewhere you won't even identify.

I'm pretty sure you're not talking about fighter piloting anymore. But if you won't say what you are talking about, I don't see anything that can be discussed.

I am saying that there is no way to do sufficient analysis without human coordination and that the coordination cannot be fleet based because the fleet must insert far enough out to avoid being blindsided which is in turn far enough out that there is indeed a considerable lag time. And fighter piloting in the context of hypothetical space combat and indeed in aerial combat has long meant simply "utility light combat vehicle" and there has not in fact been "fighters" for ages as "fighter" presumes the existence of "bombers" of which there has not been a need for. Dogfighting in fact will probably be a minor part of war except between belter statelets. But light spacecraft crewed by humans will certainly be required and self-defense or even opportunistic attack capability will probably be within them. Just as a Spruance still totes a gun even when most of her work is done with heliocopters.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

I am saying that there is no way to do sufficient analysis without human coordination

Sufficient analysis of what for what?

Originally Posted by jason taylor

and that the coordination cannot be fleet based because the fleet must be far enough out to avoid being blindsided which is in turn far enough out that there is indeed a considerable lag time.

Blindsided by what, and why would you need to be so far away to be clear of it?

Originally Posted by jason taylor

And fighter piloting in the context of hypothetical space combat and indeed in aerial combat has long meant simply "utility light combat vehicle" and there has not in fact been "fighters" for ages as "fighter" presumes the existence of "bombers" of which there has not been a need for.

While the first is true at least for air combat within some rather significant constraints, the second is decidedly not - bombers exist and are used to this day. And, uh, 'fighter' doesn't really presume the existence of bombers.

Anyhow, fighter aircraft do not do duty as customs boats, and a space fighter is not going to be at all suited to that job whether or not there's a canned ape on it.

[warellis]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

I am saying that there is no way to do sufficient analysis without human coordination and that the coordination cannot be fleet based because the fleet must insert far enough out to avoid being blindsided which is in turn far enough out that there is indeed a considerable lag time. And fighter piloting in the context of hypothetical space combat and indeed in aerial combat has long meant simply "utility light combat vehicle" and there has not in fact been "fighters" for ages as "fighter" presumes the existence of "bombers" of which there has not been a need for. Dogfighting in fact will probably be a minor part of war except between belter statelets. But light spacecraft crewed by humans will certainly be required and self-defense or even opportunistic attack capability will probably be within them. Just as a Spruance still totes a gun even when most of her work is done with heliocopters.

Well for air combat, strategic bombers are still quite useful in today's world due to their ability to be cruise missile trucks.

It's why the US & Russia still update and modernize their strategic bombers, because they can be used to launch cruise missiles far away from their targets' borders, often possibly far enough that the target can't reach them using conventional fighters.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Sufficient analysis of what for what?

Blindsided by what, and why would you need to be so far away to be clear of it?

While the first is true at least for air combat within some rather significant constraints, the second is decidedly not - bombers exist and are used to this day. And, uh, 'fighter' doesn't really presume the existence of bombers.

Anyhow, fighter aircraft do not do duty as customs boats, and a space fighter is not going to be at all suited to that job whether or not there's a canned ape on it.

You have to do sufficient analysis of anything you make contact with to decide what it is, who it belongs to, what to do about it, and anything of the kind. And you have to be out of effective weapons range while doing that. Otherwise you might as well just play Russian Roulette.

You have to avoid being blindsided by whatever defenses may or may not be there but of which you are not normally willing to risk your expensive fleet lest Emperor Evil not be forgiving.

Fighter does presume the existence of bombers. Otherwise it just means, "really fast aircraft." With the exception of interesting oddities like the B-52 and the Stealth(which is ridiculously called a fighter) and the warthog all warplanes are fighters even though most of their missions are ground attack. But once you stop making dedicated attack aircraft then the term fighter is just generic. When there is for all practical purposes just one type of warplane which is fighter-bomber then the term fighter is nostalgia not precision. Just like paratroopers is just another word for infantry with attitude problems when all infantry are infantry.

And no fighter aircraft do not do duty as customs boats because the atmosphere is not the ocean. And whether or not a space fighter can do the job depends on what the author sees a fighter as. And no computer, and no ape can invent the concepts of space or fighter or canning let alone space fighter or canned ape on their own. More to the point a computer is not sufficient to tell an assassin from a dancer which is why we still use VIP bodyguards. And neither is a canned ape who besides being obviously dead and meant for food or else why would one can it, has not been trained for such a feat while alive.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

You have to do sufficient analysis of anything you make contact with to decide what it is, who it belongs to, what to do about it, and anything of the kind. And you have to be out of effective weapons range while doing that. Otherwise you might as well just play Russian Roulette.

You have to avoid being blindsided by whatever defenses may or may not be there but of which you are not normally willing to risk your expensive fleet lest Emperor Evil not be forgiving.

Your determination to avoid making any concrete statement about the premise you're arguing from is quite impressive.

Originally Posted by jason taylor

Fighter does presume the existence of bombers. Otherwise it just means, "really fast aircraft."

No, it has some rather distinct implications about fitness to engage other fighters in combat.

Originally Posted by jason taylor

With the exception of interesting oddities like the B-52 and the Stealth(which is ridiculously called a fighter) and the warthog all warplanes are fighters even though most of their missions are ground attack. But once you stop making dedicated attack aircraft then the term fighter is just generic.

If you want to define every bomber, ground attack aircraft, AWACS, military transport, gunship and so forth in the world as an 'oddity' you have perhaps gone a great deal too far.

[jason taylor]

"Your determination to avoid making any concrete statement about the premise you're arguing from is quite impressive."

As the premise is space combat which has not taken place yet, making concrete statements is difficult. And any statement about a possible future war is necessarily speculative. Could you perhaps tell me what details you wish given? The premise is that a force of indeterminate size is sent on an indeterminate mission and wishes to gain intelligence, deny it to it's enemy, extend dominance over no-man's-space and whatever before beginning operations. The question is "what is the fighter to ship ratio" and given the potential of drones that can only be answered in the light of answering how many manned vs unmanned assets are needed to do that job.

"No, it has some rather distinct implications about fitness to engage other fighters in combat."

Which implication is irrelevant for planes which spend most of the time in ground attack and is in any case ahistorical and would be like demanding that the Grenadier Guards be the only regiment in the British Army that uses grenades. The only implication is that fighters were cool when Snoopy fought the Red Baron.

"If you want to define every bomber, ground attack aircraft, AWACS, military transport, gunship and so forth in the world as an 'oddity' you have perhaps gone a great deal too far."

Dedicated bombers and ground attack aircraft are seldom built, transports are not intended for combat, AWACS is a command aircraft, and gunships are not planes. So yes the word fighter becomes obsolete when nearly all warplanes are fighters in designation and fighter-bombers in function.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

"Your determination to avoid making any concrete statement about the premise you're arguing from is quite impressive."

As the premise is space combat which has not taken place yet, making concrete statements is difficult. And any statement about a possible future war is necessarily speculative. Could you perhaps tell me what details you wish given rather then asking for a nebulous premise.

You're constantly talking about some kind of scenario that calls for the AI to make wide-ranging but unspecified assessments of supposedly civilian but suspect vessels, engage in both command decisions over a multi-element force and intelligence analysis, and generally perform what seem to be wider duties than are normally placed on a single human.

Considering that the specific activity previously in question was piloting a fighter, what the model you're proposing that puts any of the above, let alone all of them, on the metaphorical shoulders of our poor computer is a rather vital point to me.

Originally Posted by jason taylor

"No, it has some rather distinct implications about fitness to engage other fighters in combat."

Which implication is irrelevant for planes which spend most of the time in ground attack and is in any case ahistorical and would be like demanding that the Grenadier Guards be the only regiment in the British Army that uses grenades.

Um, fighters are both presently and historically designed with air-to-air capability as a priority - including the ones for which ground attack is also a significant priority.

You might argue that that's a misplaced focus, but to deny it's there is simply wrong.

I don't know what you're going for with the last sentence.

Originally Posted by jason taylor

"If you want to define every bomber, ground attack aircraft, AWACS, military transport, gunship and so forth in the world as an 'oddity' you have perhaps gone a great deal too far."

Dedicated bombers and ground attack aircraft are seldom built, transports are not intended for combat, AWACS is a command aircraft, and gunships are not planes. So yes the word fighter becomes obsolete when nearly all warplanes are fighters in designation and fighter-bombers in function.

Gunships.

Anyway, yes, once you handwave lots of very important military aircraft away, nothing but fighters of various sorts (basically all multirole to some extent) remains.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

You're constantly talking about some kind of scenario that calls for the AI to make wide-ranging but unspecified assessments of supposedly civilian but suspect vessels, engage in both command decisions over a multi-element force and intelligence analysis, and generally perform what seem to be wider duties than are normally placed on a single human.

Considering that the specific activity previously in question was piloting a fighter, what the model you're proposing that puts any of the above, let alone all of them, on the metaphorical shoulders of our poor computer is a rather vital point to me.

Um, fighters are both presently and historically designed with air-to-air capability as a priority - including the ones for which ground attack is also a significant priority.

You might argue that that's a misplaced focus, but to deny it's there is simply wrong.

I don't know what you're going for with the last sentence.

Gunships.

Anyway, yes, once you handwave lots of very important military aircraft away, nothing but fighters of various sorts (basically all multirole to some extent) remains.

Actually what I had in mind was more a drone operator then a combat vehicle in any event. But impression I had was that you were saying it was possible to eliminate almost every human operator below flag.

And the decisions I am talking about are regularly placed on junior officers and have been for thousands of years.

And where I am going "with that last sentence" is that fighter is just a name and militaries change names more to allude to past glories then to make a description. A hussar regiment is a tank regiment not a regiment of Hungarian cowboys.