"Space Fighters - really? Ever?" Topic

Well they are smaller targets. At distance it makes hitting them a very difficult problem as even a small lateral vector can cause a laser to miss at anything over a light – second distance. If you can create a lateral vector of 3-4m/second then the laser would be likely to miss something that small. I think it would be more like PT Boats in space closing to fire a Salvo of guided torps with submunition warheads or bomb pumped lasers.

Go to Starship Combat news. There are some very extensive arguments against the use of fighters. Great site. The opinion over there is that in the real world they would not work.

Al

Ahh but if the new reactionless drive isn't wishful thinking then all bets are off!

Fighters would continue to be used in space for many of the same reasons that fighters continue to be used on earth today.

I have read many of the arguments against space fighters on Starship Combat News and other forums and find the assumptions they are based upon to be flawed.

Missile systems and drones may become more and more prominent on the battlefields of today and the future, but I doubt the role of the manned fighter will ever be completely eliminated unless we develop a truly intelligent AI that we trust enough to make life and death decisions with weapons capable of large scale destruction.

I was thinking the same thing, Only Warlock. One of the arguments against space fighters is the wisdom of dedicating fuel (propellant mass) to moving a lone human about, and also the propellant cost of multiple ships (with their assorted mass)within a carrier, rather than one big, but less massive. ship with missiles, which need less and waste less propellant. But if there is no propellant mass cost, then the "excess" systems (life support, etc.) for the fighters become as cheap to carry along as anything else, with the only real concern being mass and maneuverability en route. But once at the battle, the fighters can launch and become multiple independent weapons platforms, while the main vessel, freed of their associated mass, has far more maneuverability itself.

Of course there are still the limitations of manned fighters vs. unmanned drones, so the argument doesn't completely cease.

So I wonder in a hundred years when all airborne combat platforms are unmanned, that people in the future will wonder why the fighters in Star Wars had pilots.

Don't think fighters-they're in the same medium as their targets. Think PT Boats.

A plane is a means to transport ordnance further than a ship can fire its guns. This has remained viable to this day. And it has advantages like loitering time, a closer view of the target and it means the main ship doesn't have to expose itself.

I have a feeling that some of these principles remain valid even in space, but that the human factor will probably be removed from the equation in favour of drones and smart missiles that would be more like a mix of mine and torpedo, able to remain dormant until the target is close enough to strike.

You HAVE to lock down the tech before even getting into any discussion. In some fighters make great sense while in others they do not. It is kinda like asking if fighters are useful at sea – without specifying age of sail or WWII…

Well, I think a couple of Super Marine Spitfires would have been incredibly useful in the age of sail…. I mean they would have torn the French fleet a new one for sure ;)

Yes, in a 'realistic'* space combat environment there is no real need for manned fighters, for reasons already alluded to: no horizon, the 'medium' is the same for both the capital ship and the fighter, etc. There might be a few cases where something like a fighter makes sense (low-orbit combat, which re-introduces a horizon is the main one), but generally in deep space combat they'd best be viewed as munitions, not fighters. So then that begs the question of why putting a man on it if you're not planning for it to come back.

Don't think fighters-they're in the same medium as their targets. Think PT Boats.

This analogy is better, but it has a major problem which is that a water-going torpedo is an 'asymmetric' weapon since it strike the part of the ship that's underwater and hence harder to protect. There's no 'realistic' equivalent to this in space combat; there's no 'golden BB' that a small ship can carry that will do massive damage that a larger ship couldn't carry more of and do even more massive damage.

I have read many of the arguments against space fighters on Starship Combat News and other forums and find the assumptions they are based upon to be flawed.

What do you find flawed about them?

Ahh but if the new reactionless drive isn't wishful thinking then all bets are off!

Yes, if this things works as advertised it's going to totally redefine the baseline for what is 'realistic'! I'm still not sure it means fighters (I read it and thought 'interplanetary missile swarm'), but it will mean a lot of what is 'known' will have to be reexamined.

-Will

*Whenever I say 'realistic' I mean a space combat environment that follows physics and engineering as we understand it today and can reasonably predict based on technologies under development. If NASA announces they have a Warp Drive tomorrow then disregarded everything said. :)

Also, along with nailing down technological assumptions as Dynaman8789 points out, the combat *environment* makes a lot of difference too. A near-ish future Earth orbit scenario differs a lot from a far future war between Earth and Mars, and not just in what sort of technology they can use. The entire nature of space combat changes when two fleets are intercepting each other in deep space (solar orbit) versus dealing with each other in low planetary orbit. What makes sense in one combat model doesn't always make sense in the other.

-Will

Fighters in overwhelming numbers. More targets than defensive weapons.

My thoughts on this may be wrong, but it seems to me any kind of manned fighter would likely end up more suited for close defense and support of the larger ships.

We really aren't going to know until we get a real life air battle of a manned fighter against a drone happens. Most drones now are not made or equipped for air combat but striking a distant target and mainly on the ground.

I think the main decisive factor between manned and drone would be a discussion on AI and communication.

Right now we do not have the AI to control drones so they need a link up to the carrier. -1 drone for now

You need to have communication with the drone, but communication also means detection… -1 drone

And delay due to distance -1 drone

And in non-blank space (asteroids, a planet) you lose LOS communication with the drone. -1 drone

"The question is perhaps mainly about the payload. I think we already believe that sensors and other useful gadgets will only get smaller and better over time. So these small ships would perform critical scouting, data collecting and other functions."

Except the larger ship would gain the same advantage and the larger array would see the enemy just as far, if not further away (nothing blocks the view. Even asteroid fields and gas clouds are far more diffuse than shown in Sci-Fi). Time issues would be the only factor, not distance. So, what can the fighter/scout bring to the table? A closer launch platform? However, to do that it would want to be more like a sea warfare destroyer screen than fighters. Big enough to be self supporting so it can stay on station.

I would thank lot depends on how destriutive a pauyload you come up with. We ahve no screens on the horizon, so the only thing to take the blow is armor. But if you aRE throwing nukes, you might not be able to carry enough to make any differennce, so maybe carry none.

And, perhaps you cant make a ship big enough to make a difference either. One hit with a nuke squish goes the ship no matter how big. As it stands now, we cant make spaceships even as big as we can make sea going ones due to tidal stresses. well, I suppose you could as long as you dont mind srteering speeds of an astiroid.

As Dynaman8789 said, we cant even really argue until we have a common tech to discuss. Takem lasers for example. Most space combat uses them, yet practical experience on real battle fields has shown they ARE way less useful than we thought they would be. Whne we start making space warships that may turn around, or something unforseen may make them totaly useless. remember all the steam rams pewople made?

owen

Fighters in overwhelming numbers. More targets than defensive weapons.

Fighters aren't cheap enough to pull this off now (or even in the past, compare the cost of a Zero to a 40mm AA gun), how is an extremely expensive space fighter supposed to be bought in sufficient numbers to do this? And it would probably only work once, and then your enemy starts to festoon his ships with even more anti-fighter weapons. It's an economic battle the fighters *cannot* win.

Never mind the terrifying numbers of highly trained pilots you'll be expending in the process.

Besides, 'saturation attack' is a job for unmanned missiles if I ever saw one.

-Will

And, perhaps you cant make a ship big enough to make a difference either. One hit with a nuke squish goes the ship no matter how big.

Well, this isn't really true in space- no shockwave means that nuclear warheads are a lot less dangerous (since the ships already have to be extremely radiation resistant) and it's not likely they could score a 'one-hit kill'.

However, I think your general point is correct, space combat is going to be extremely dangerous and putting *all* of your eggs in one basket might not make a lot of sense either. So it's a good chance you won't see any 'Death Stars' either.

-Will

I think the real question on manned versus unmanned is how close do you need a human mind to the 'shoot/don't shoot' decision loop? If there's a split second decision that needs to be made on whether your target is really an enemy vessel or a transport full of orphans, that argues for a human 'pulling the trigger'. If it's really obvious that the target is really the Bad Guys, then you don't really need a living person to decide when to shoot, only to decide if it is the Bad Guys.

This is why combat environment is *really* important in this discussion. Compare these two scenarios:
1. Future Earth Orbit Earth is still divided between many nation states and Earth orbit is full is various space facilities from many of them. Satellites, Space Stations, O'Neal Colonies, you name it. Lots of ships coming and going from the Earth's Surface, between the stations, to and fro from the Lunar settlements, all sorts of traffic. One day, one of these ships deviates from it's planned course on to a new course that brings it on a potential intercept course with a friendly facility. Is the pilot not paying attention? Is there a mechanical problem? Is the ship really a hostile and planning a sneak attack on this facility? You'd better dispatch a ship to find out, and since whatever you decide might spark an international incident, sending sort of manned craft makes a fair amount of sense in this case.*
2. The Great Mars Rebellion- In this scenario, Earth is a united government, has colonized Mars, and then the Martians have revolted. It's a bi-polar conflict, no other parties involved. In this case the Earthlings know that anything launched from Mars orbit is hostile, and the Martians know the same about anything launched from Earth orbit. One day your long-range detection systems detect ships coming in on a vector from the opposing planet. In this case, you don't need any human input at all on the 'pointy end'; you can send out unmanned ships with orders to engage at targets that are hours or days (or weeks, or months….) away.

-Will

*For this scenario a one-man fighter in the classic sense probably still doesn't make sense, since if the target ship really is in trouble you'll want to put some boots in the airlock to help out/verify this is really the case, so some sort of small 'gunship' would be even more appropriate.

A lot will depend on how capable AIs can really be. They can beat us at chess. But, there are a lot more veriables oin space. Also, there may well be the problem of what happens when the bad guys do something unforseen. Can the AI cope? Humans can at least rty, not sure what an AI does when it is outside its programing.

I suspect once you breach the armor that a bunch of radiation will get inside. But, if you build for that perhaps not a problem.

from anpother conversation some years ago, a current aircraft carrier will break in half in space if you try to turn very fast at all. We just dont make mateerial strong enough to handle the tidal stress. of course, once we start building out there, we may well find a solution to that. right now it may not be important enough to solve, later it will be.

Single man fighter may not be capable enough to bne of much ise. As long as you build bigger engines no reason they will have any speed advantage over a bigger ship, but they may well have a huge turn advantage. But if all of your weaponry is long range beam or missle, that may be a so what sort of thoi ng. Or, beams may not be able to turn fast enough, AND then one man fighters become the only survivable platform.

It ewill be intersting to see how it all shakes out.

owen

In his Lost Fleet novels, Jack Campbell puts forth a compelling argument against AI combat… namely that if an AI is smart enough to act independently in combat, it's smart enough to ask the question "Hey… Why the heck am *I* fighting to begin with?" (Or something on that order.) and thus, AIs became either unreliable or dangerous for combat use. It's a clever lampshade that makes sense.
(But the Lost Fleet does not have fighter craft.)

As to "why have fighters," I can see that a future fleet might feature atmospheric fighters for planetary assaults, and these would likely have space capability for at least the launch and recovery phase, with some independent maneuverability to reduce the risk of enemy attacks during these two vulnerable points in the fighters' action.

Regarding AI and how capable it can be, we have software that can beat the *best human chess player alive*. Yes, space combat (or any real combat) is far more complex than chess, but then Deep Blue is already a relic; we have more advanced hardware and even more advanced software at our disposal, and it's only going to get better from here. Space combat is also actually a pretty ideal situation for computer control, as it's far less 'cluttered' than ground combat.

As for the 'AI revolution' debate, I'm of the opinion that we'll get software that's more than smart enough to 'do the job' long before we reach any sort of self awareness in software. Really, we already plenty of self-guiding weapon systems, and a space combat AI would only need to be a little smarter than that. Or you'd have a series of AI's, higher-level ones on the weapon buses and lower-level ones on the actual weapons. Either way it's not something I think would actually cause a problem.

The other factor in all this is that any combat spacecraft is already basically going to be 'fly by wire'; the actions it would likely have to take would be far too complex too coordinate between crew members 'on the fly' and require reaction times possibly in excess of human norms. So the ship is really computer controlled and the human is only offering input to the computer. All the human would really buy you is someone right in the decision loop, which might be useful in some cases but useless in others.

-Will

What will space teach us? Probably that we need to be more flexible in our reactions, planning and preparation than we presently are.

I think this is the most important conclusion. People like to try to force space warfare into a naval model, or sometimes an aerial model, but in reality space combat is going to be it's own 'thing', with it's own set of parameters. It's not going to resemble naval combat any more than air combat resembles naval combat, or naval combat resembles land combat. It will require discarding all prior assumptions about how warfare is 'supposed' to work.

-Will

I think all analyses on the viability of space fighters ignore nuclear weapons. While they don't work like they do in atmosphere, a direct hit of a small nuclear torpedo (something a fighter may carry as well as a large ship) is basically "the golden bb." So at that point the question comes down to specific assumptions that are usually summed up as "lasers vs missiles" but with lots of other bits too. But recognizing the viability of fighters (PT boats if you prefer, and potentially unmanned just like any future vehicle) under certain assumptions isn't as unscientific as many have been led to believe.

I've always taken the nmb board name to be entirely tongue in cheek and don't feel offended by it at all.

If fighting in Space will be anything like fighting on the planet … We will find and continue to find weapons, tactics, etc. and ways to kill each other … regardless …

Wow, that post above is NOT mine. The bug strikes again…!

-Will

I think that space battles will largely be marked by all the things that make a bush war icky – sneak attacks, bushwacking, intel and spies, killing of "civilians" / colonists, etc. It will probably be improvised, and probably be very lethal since space is a more hostile environment than the ocean.

I have always agreed with the conclusion of the fellow who wrote The Aliens Colonial Marines Technical Manual on the subject of space warfare, that the starship commander will have to have the mentality of an assassin, and proceed accordingly…

I think for wargaming purposes, it's best to consider the small ship dubious at this point. I think a frigate / corvette is a more likely player, with 1-man fighters/bombers/torpedo-bombers being too small to survive or compete with the usefulness of a missile barrage.

I would only jump in here with the Deus ex machina angle of What Is Your Technological Premise? Depending upon how your technology works (or doesn't!), small one or two seater combat craft may very well be viable, especially if their role is for use against less technologically advanced subject colonies or indigenous civilizations…

Too bad for Star Wars, the end of the first movie was a perfect rip-off of the movie Midway. But neither the Death Star nor the X/Y-wing/Tie seem to make any sense.

Actually, George Lucas was indeed very much influenced by the WW2 air war movies he watched growing up as a kid in Northern California (as was yours truly). The point of the snub fighters vs. the Huge, Evil God Machine that was The Death Star was the universal and timeless tale of a hero and his companions heroically challenging and defeating Ultimate Evil in part due to Evil's own inevitable hubris. The rest was the cinematographer's art of the visual spectacle as only George Lucas could have delivered as he did.

Leland R. Erickson
Metal Express
metal-express.net

Yes, in a 'realistic'* space combat environment there is no real need for manned fighters, for reasons already alluded to: no horizon, the 'medium' is the same for both the capital ship and the fighter, etc. There might be a few cases where something like a fighter makes sense (low-orbit combat, which re-introduces a horizon is the main one)

Honestly, you shouldn't be thinking 'fighter', but 'Yangtze Gunboat' (or other 'brown-water Navy') for the case of low orbit operations.

If you're bouncing in and out of the atmosphere, I can still see single-seat 'fighters' or 'bombers' in use, but any orbital-only operations are going to be much bigger craft. Part of that is because of needing bodies in the seats 24/7, part of that is because you need a boarding party, and part of that is because you need damage control teams for damage that isn't immediately catastrophic.

The atmosphere-capable craft are going to look more like helicopters in terms of operations, IMO. Not really long-ranged in space terms, largely because getting into orbit from an Earth-like planet is extremely energy-intensive. Look at how big the Space Shuttle is when ready for takeoff, compared to the orbiter alone when it returns. Lots and lots of fuel needed, which makes for a dang big airframe/spaceframe if it's a craft that can drop to the surface, fight, and return. I'd honestly expect a "dropfighter" or whatever you want to call the atmosphere-capable craft to be the size of a B1, not an F16, not even an F111. Call it 45-50m long and 200,000kg. And that's going to be your 'small' craft, probably. Dropships delivering troops and vehicles are going to be even bigger, probably the size of a 747 (75m, 450,000kg).

While they don't work like they do in atmosphere, a direct hit of a small nuclear torpedo (something a fighter may carry as well as a large ship) is basically "the golden bb."

Reposting what the bug ate:
The problem with this model is still that while the fighter can carry a few, a larger ship can carry a lot more. And if you dispense with all of the gear needed to service a fighter, you can dedicate that mass to larger (ie, longer ranged) missiles. It's extremely hard to find a scenario where the fighter (which needs to return home after it's mission) actually gives the missiles *longer* range then if you dispensed with the fighter and had the mothership just be a missile ship (since the missiles don't have to come home). So instead of ships exchanging gunfire or laser fire, they are slinging missile salvos at each other. Still not a lot of room for a fighter to make much of a difference.

Honestly, you shouldn't be thinking 'fighter', but 'Yangtze Gunboat' (or other 'brown-water Navy') for the case of low orbit operations.

I actually agree 100%, I was just pointing that if there's a place where a small craft would actually add combat utility, it's low orbit operations.

-Will

Just to voice my opinion on the idea of 'atmospheric fighters'.

What atmosphere?

An earth-type fighter is not going to be effective in a thin Mars-like atmosphere, or a corrosive Venus-like atmosphere, or a crushing Jupiter-like atmosphere.

A vehicle able to operate close-in to a planetary body is going to have to be very versatile, and consequently, very expensive. Not what a fighter is about.

What atmosphere?

An earth-type fighter is not going to be effective in a thin Mars-like atmosphere, or a corrosive Venus-like atmosphere, or a crushing Jupiter-like atmosphere.

Why the heck would you bother with an atmospheric fighter in those atmospheres? Who fights over Jupiter or Venus? If you can't land there and live there, then nobody wants it, and if anybody does want it, they're probably too alien to want the Earth-like planets you *do* want, so there's no reason for conflict.

But when it comes to planets that humans would actually want to colonize and establish air superiority over, those would have atmospheres nearly identical to Earth's— because otherwise, we can't live there.

Even then, what I meant by "atmosphere capable" was simply a craft able to operate within the atmosphere for dealing with low-level reconnaissance , troop support, etc.. That doesn't necessarily mean the craft operate as "lift surface" craft, merely that they can safely enter the atmosphere and move about within it, which a big, hulking interstellar craft (or interplanetary craft) isn't likely to be able to do.

On the cost issue, the value of the target world may well dictate the viability of a fighter designed specifically for that world. If fighters are what's needed to capture Mars, then fighters for Mars will be designed, cost or no cost. Heck, NASA is designing aircraft for sustained Mars exploration even now. So if just "looking around" is justification enough for a planet-specific, expensive flying craft, "conquering the source of unobtainium" will certain justify the cost of fighters!

But as it is, even some variability of atmospheric densities among human-habitable worlds will probably not be significant enough to prevent multi-world "lift" craft from being developed. Newton's laws are Newton's laws, and a wing's a wing. If the pressure hovers in the area of 1 bar, a fighter could be "over designed" to compensate for minor variances. It's not like Earth fighters don't already deal with variable amounts of atmospheric pressure already!

Defensive depth. Those single laser fightersa give you an extra layer of defense by being forward posted. Big fast long range missles probably dont have a lot of evasion ability, so a light beam weapon, or maybe better impacter missles to thin them out. Depends on the speed of the missles of course. Then you get misle escorts to take out the defending fighters……

Or maybe not. I have been listening to the demise of the tank and manned fighters for 50 years now. They are still around We wont know about all the problems with space fighters until we get enough stuff up there to try it all out and see. Steam, steel and breechloaders altered things beyond what most people could get thier headsaround. Space is likely to do the same. Stuff we dont know, unforseen and unimagined will shape what we build. Single seat fighters may be the Steam ram of the futuree. Or they may be the Dreadnaught. We wont lknow for a good many years

owen

I'm going to bring up an old sci-fi comic titled 'Albedo Anthropomorphics', now if you can get past the fact that all the characters are furries or animals in human form. This comic had some really sound ideas and logic for space combat. Just see this guy's blog about it from a few years ago.
link

Really the only small craft were the aerodynes which had to perform as fighter and troop shuttle. All deep space fights were conducted with ACV (Autonomous Combat Vehicles) which would co-ordinate attacks on a target ship with their launch vessel.

Defensive depth. Those single laser fightersa give you an extra layer of defense by being forward posted. Big fast long range missles probably dont have a lot of evasion ability, so a light beam weapon, or maybe better impacter missles to thin them out. Depends on the speed of the missles of course. Then you get misle escorts to take out the defending fighters……

This is a great example of a 'fighter mission' that absolutely does not need the 'fighters' to be manned. In this scenario it's perfectly clear that the incoming missiles are in fact incoming missiles, so there's no judgement calls to be made; you just need extremely fast reaction times. And a reasonably bright computer could handle that job as well or better than a human. So your laser pickets can be drones with minimal oversight from the mothership, and they'll work just as well or probably better than if they were manned. They will be smaller and simpler (no squishy human and life support to move around), can have better performance (no human to worry about killing with excessive g forces), can tolerate damage better (again, no 'soft' pilot kill) and are much more expendable in the event that things go all pear shaped. In this case the 'drone' definitely wins.

-Will

The single largest problem with manned fighters going to beat on the other guy's Capital Ships is Delta V. A manned fighter needs at least 2x the Delta V of a missile, and that's just to get to the other fleet, blow past, come to a relative halt compared to the carrier, and then wait to get picked up.

If you want your fighter to go to the bad guys, blow stuff up, then turn around and come home, you need 4x the delta v of a missile making a trip to the bad guys to blow up. So, instead of putting a human and all the junk to keep them alive into the 'airframe', you'd be better off loading it with either 4x the ordnance or let it get there in 1/4 the time…

So as long as you're handwaving fuel (technically Reaction Mass, but close enough to fuel for analogy), you can have manned space fighters.

As regards nukes in space, well, they're the only explosive weapon that can afford to miss the target, and even then they generally can't afford to miss by much. No, seriously. link

A one kiloton nuclear detonation produces 4.19e12 joules of energy. One kilometer away from the detonation point defines a sphere with a surface area of about 12,600,000 square meters (the increase in surface area with the radius of the sphere is another way of stating the Inverse Square law). Dividing reveals that at this range the energy density is approximately 300 kilojoules per square meter. Under ideal conditions this would be enough energy to vaporize 25 grams or 10 cubic centimeters of aluminum (in reality it won't be this much due to conduction and other factors).

1e8 watts per square centimeter for about a microsecond will melt part of the surface of a sheet of aluminum. 1e9 W/cm2 for a microsecond will vaporize the surface, and 1e11 W/cm2 for a microsecond will cause enough vaporization to create impulsive shock damage (i.e., the surface layer of the material is vaporized at a rate exceeding the speed of sound). The one kiloton bomb at one kilometer only does about 3.3e7 W/cm2 for a microsecond.

One megaton at one kilometer will do 3.3e10 W/cm2, enough to vaporize but not quite enough for impulsive shock. At 100 meters our one meg bomb will do 3.3e12 W/cm2, or about 33 times more energy than is required for impulsive shock. The maximum range for [a megaton bomb to cause] impulsive shock is about 570 meters.

Oh, and the bad boys sitting on the business end of a Trident 2 missile? Wiki says 375kiloton yield each, times up to 12 birds. So you'd have to put said Trident 2 missile just as close (closer, really) as it needs to hit for a ground target.

Unless someone steps up to Nuclear Shaped Charges and/or bomb-pumped x-ray or gamma-ray lasers. Those are a wee bit nastier, with a pretty significant stand-off range. The math for those that care to do it is available on the Atomic Rockets page I linked to.

Yeah, for me the real killer is that a direct hit from a nuke will pretty much be guaranteed to wreck your whole ship.

So why I think that might be a point for smaller ships is simply that it takes more nukes to hit all the targets you're putting out-- my little fighter that only carries four nukes can hit 4 targets, and it takes 1 hit to kill it. Your big battleship with hundreds of nukes still only takes 1 hit to kill.

There are of course other advantages to being able to spread yourself out.

Really I think too much energy is put into big ships vs. small ships (and also lasers vs. missiles). The most likely scenario is that you're going to have combined arms of some sort and varying technology as people develop different weapon systems. So will lasers make missile saturation attacks impossibly expensive? Maybe, with a certain type of missile against a certain ship's laser systems under the right tactical conditions. Will several small nuke-ships be able to take out a larger, more expensive nuke-ship? Depends on the details of how the missiles work, what defenses are in play, the tactical situation, etc.

Which is why I'm somewhat disappointed by hard SF that takes a certain set of theoretical assumptions and makes those completely dominant. Its much more fun (and quite possibly more realistic) if all the different theories are actually competing in-universe.

I think the root of the problem might be an over-optimism about weapon accuracy, in particular, but I think my overall point stands even if weapons are very accurate.

Right, while I'm pretty passionate about arguing against manned 'fighters', there are really too many technical and environmental factors to really offer ironclad answers on any of this right now. Someone on another board posted this in response to a similar discussion-

Propulsion system: undefined
Realistic Mass ratios of Space Craft: undefined
Spacecraft Reactors: undefined
Closing ranges: undefined
Closing speeds: undefined
Weapon System 1 Effective range: undefined
Weapon System 2 Effective range: undefined
Mass of armor: undefined
Effectiveness of armor vs weapon system 1: undefined
Effectiveness of armor vs weapon system 2: undefined
Mass penalty of armor for weapon system 1: undefined
Mass penalty of armor for weapon system 2: undefined

Mission parameters: undefined
Required DeltaV to meet Mission parameters: Undefined
Benefit of High Thrust vs High ISP visavis Mission Parameters: Undefined

And there's a bucket load of possible answers to all of these points.

Which is why I'm somewhat disappointed by hard SF that takes a certain set of theoretical assumptions and makes those completely dominant. Its much more fun (and quite possibly more realistic) if all the different theories are actually competing in-universe.

Good point; a setting that hasn't had a major war to provide the 'right' answer to these questions in some ways would be a lot more interesting, since you'd have multiple competing tactical theories and that leads to more interesting engagements once the balloon does go up. I have a bunch of sketchy notes on a setting I've been working on which embraces this idea; space warships are relatively new and there hasn't been enough warfare to provide guidance on what actually works in practice.

-Will

I would think that a space fighter would likely be an unmanned, high-speed weapons platform -- essentially just a big gun or bundle of missiles mounted on a large engine. No life support and no need for reactor shielding or "intertial dampeners" reduces the amount of stuff on the fighter and makes it more useful for high-G maneuvers, such as zipping in close to capital ships to deliver a nuke or two.

What sort of tech bends would we need to see? How could [manned space fighters] possibly be designed?

As I mentioned before, the classic Bab5/BSG/SW/Wing Commander 'WW2 carrier ops in spaaaaaaaaaaace' trope requires an enormous breakthrough in engines, specifically one of Delta V.

You need some kind of super-fuel (that somehow does not work on missiles) or a way to suck up reaction mass while in flight, but Bussard Ramjets seem to have a ludicrously high starting velocity (0.05cee) and a relatively low speed limit where drag caused by decelerating interstellar hydrogen finally equals the thrust generated by fusing it (0.14cee).

Another major difference is that airplanes can use the atmosphere to change direction, while a spacecraft cannot.

I use unmanned drones in my hard SF games. But if I were playing in a space opera type of game, I wouldn't have any problem with manned space fighters.

Also, take a look at this website: link

Evidently you've never heard of the First (or Second) Battle of Yavin!

In one of the Man-Kzin Wars books, there was an excellent description of what i'd consider a realistic "fighter". A small manned ship that has dozens of bomb pumped laser drones slaved to it across a few thousand miles of space. Drones were controlled via laser coms.

"Yes, but a Nuke is only the golden BBDA if it reaches the ship – modern battle tanks already carry small point defense systems, and I guarantee that US Carriers already carry classified point defense systems as well as their protective DD screen. What will those systems look like with the tech levels that allow us to be in outer space as well as fight in outer space? You probably won't be able to get close enough to fire a nuke missile at a worthy ship, and will probably have to resort to some sort of espionage trick."

Right, so you're on the "Laser" side of the laser vs. missiles debate, probably. Or maybe you think there will be other effective ways of stopping lasers (electronic warfare? Most of the theory now seems to suggest electronic warfare won't be that dominant in space combat due to LOS communications but you can probably figure something out…)

Although after that you said that "smart" missiles would be one of the weapons of future space combat… in which case I say, strap a nuke into that missile. Its just the most effective type of explosive is all, and does a hell of a lot better than purely kinetic weapons because it can take a near miss and still do damage… in fact even a further miss can damage more sensitive things such as sensors.

"So in very general terms, the idea of effective tiny attack craft seems like something that can be set aside. Small attack craft should probably be more the size of a frigate / corvette / destroyer, with expendable drones used for the "tiny" work."
I see this sort of argument a lot, but I'm not sure its exactly correct. Or incorrect for that matter. Exactly where the line is drawn for whether it makes sense to make a ship manned or not actually has very little to do with size, but instead tactical and strategic purpose. Value and technology also play a part-- if a ship is meant to be kept alive for many missions then men might be able to help keep it alive and making it manned might not make it any less expendable.

In fact, one setup I kinda like is having a very small manned ship (think a lifeboat, almost) that detaches from a larger drone ship (whatever the optimal size is-- perhaps a frigate, perhaps a battleship) to stay back from the battle and act as a commander. The small manned ship could certainly be one man, and may even have some 'weapons' to act as a basic defense against missiles and such, or perhaps even to act as a reserve.

"Good point; a setting that hasn't had a major war to provide the 'right' answer to these questions in some ways would be a lot more interesting, since you'd have multiple competing tactical theories and that leads to more interesting engagements once the balloon does go up. I have a bunch of sketchy notes on a setting I've been working on which embraces this idea; space warships are relatively new and there hasn't been enough warfare to provide guidance on what actually works in practice."

Definitely, thought to a certain degree I don't think there will ever be definitive answers. People will always be trying to come up with new and unexpected ways to kill each other, and people often miss the more complex ways ships/weapon systems might interact with each other "in the field." One of my favorite examples is that the "pro-laser" types in the laser vs. missiles debate often don't think about how lasers might be used to "cover" missiles by blinding each other's sensors (or even lasers if you get a lucky hit) at long range, allowing a side with a slight material advantage to more efficiently kill the enemy (as opposed to going into a bloody lasers-only match that might come down to a loss due to some bad luck).

1) Regarding projectiles (any sort) vs. point defense (any sort): Any sufficiently large missile/torpedo/whatever strike WILL kill any ship, any point defense system will have a saturation point at which point something gets through. The dynamic really comes down to if the point defense system is so effective that it either a) makes the economic cost of such a strike too expensive (ie, it cost more in projectiles and launch systems to kill the ship than the ship itself costs) or b) makes arranging such a strike operationally infeasible (building and collecting enough projectiles in the right place at the right time is too difficult to arrange). The saturation point is also going to influenced by tactical/operational parameters, again, so it depends on what sort of battle you're fighting. The bad news for space combat games is that I suspect the results will be pretty binary; The ship survives or it's turned into a rapidly cooling ball of gas, and not a lot in between.
2) Manned vs. Unmanned: I agree it's not really a matter of size, it's really a matter of mission. For certain roles you need intuitive judgement, boots in the airlock, whatever and for that you currently need people. Other missions only require a quick trigger finger and the ability to be sacrificed without care, and for that machines do just as well. I personally think that set-piece battles will be between almost entirely drone fleets, with some humans (or post-humans) riding herd out of the line of fire in a command ship. Engagements or 'Operations Other Than War' in messier environments would require humans/post-humans closer to the action. This is actually good news for space combat, as there's lot of interesting permutations of and dynamics to be had between these systems.
3) Lasers vs. Lasers: Excellent point, and this is where I think you'd see the type of battles that people tend to envision; ships gradually getting damaged as vulnerable external systems (sensors, radiators, etc) are burnt off, ships maneuvering to get vulnerable sections out of line of sight, etc. In this scenario a few missiles might serve as the coup de grace weapon against enemy ships that refuse to surrender, or you do try to coordinate a combined attacked with your ship and your missiles. This is why I think the 'right' answer to 'lasers or missiles' is both! The upside of this scenario for gaming is that it's less 'one hit one kill', the downside is that it easily turns into a 'the bigger laser always wins' scenario.

-Will

I also agree that the answer to 'lasers or missiles' is 'BOTH!'.

If you don't mind programming spreadsheets, you can do a whole lot of virtual real-ship building.

As far as missiles go, I honestly cannot see any reason other than the Outer Space Weapons treaty to not use nuclear warheads. Kinetics will simply create massive debris fields and potentially cause Kessler Syndrome if you're slugging things out in orbit. Nukes may play hell with electronics planetside, but don't leave much debris behind to cause troubles to the occupying force later. Because it doesn't do a dang bit of good to secure the orbitals of a planet if you can't get to the planet to trade or whatever the heck it was that made you fight there in the first place!

So you could have some bigger lasers but they may get knocked out and the bigger laser may not win at that point.

From a strictly real-world engineering standpoint the 'bigger' laser will be able to pour more energy out at longer range than the 'smaller' laser. So the ship with the big laser will be able to start shooting sooner and hit harder than the ship with the small laser. This is one reason the small-laser ship might want to have some projectiles it can toss out to distract the large laser ship. But if the large laser ship can do the same thing it comes back down to who has the larger laser?

-Will

I think at that point the question comes down to the specifics that aren't so easy for us to guess. Things like accuracy.

Although it should be noted that as the small laser ship you'd probably "shield" your weapons and sensors (weak points when in use) until you're closer to the large laser ship. It's still a clear advantage for the large laser ship, but it becomes less clear whether one big ship beats it's price equivalent in two smaller ships, for example. And at that point it may come down to luck (accuracy).

In fact, you might be able to work out where the enemy is if he's lasing you even if your sensors are covered up… In which case you might be able to return less effective fire that might "daze" him.

My take on space fighters is, how badly do you want to spend handwavium? Given the right drive systems (ones that favor low mass and this makes for speedy missiles and fighters) and limits on AI (hacking, social values, advanced EW, etc*), you can create a space opera environment where fighters are viable for 'technical' reasons. I don't feel pro or cons for space fighters as long as the story/setting supports them in a logical manner.
--
TAZ

* You can always get creative and say that warp/hyperspace engines tend to drive AI/electronics insane. Viva la vacuum tubes!