"Space fighters" Topic

Here are some wandering thoughts I've had about space fighters in wargames---looking to pick the brains of the community.

I love starfighters/space fighters; my favorite parts in Star Wars have always been the space battles (which are mainly about fighters, at least in the movies), I loved the design of the fighters in Babylon 5, and the redone Vypers in BSG were pretty cool. I enjoy the X-Wing game and other space-fighter games.

But I have difficulty believing they'd have such wide use in an real space navy. I'd imagine that they aren't capable of faster speeds than the big ships, so aren't good for fast strikes as they can do in nautical naval warfare. They can't carry much fuel/food/water, so their range would be limited. And if they are to be carried in a space fighter carrier, that carrier would have less internal space for its own supply needs, not to mention the supply needs of the fighters.

Now, what I could imagine space fighters (and bombers and what not) having use for would be in "planetary systems" (ie, Earth and its moon, Jupiter and its moons, etc.) The ranges are much shorter and there are terrestial or orbital stations from which to operate.

Perhaps the main use of such a space fighter would be to control this small area of space around vital installations---essentially providing mobile anti-starship missile platforms. They're small and easily deployable, so wouldn't have the operating costs of keeping ships in orbit, and they're highly mobile, so are less vulnerable to attack than orbiting space stations or satellites.

A deep-space navy might have a "space carrier", thus, not to launch fighters in a deep space engagement (where the fighters are not of much use), but instead to launch against the fighter/bomber assets of a planetary system.

Thoughts?

You're over thinking it. Space fighters are the stuff of Science Fantasy (think "Star Wars") rather than hard science fiction.

How else do you take out a Death Star?

> I'd imagine that they aren't capable of faster speeds than the big ships

Depending on the physics in place they may not be faster but they can always outmanuever a larger ship since they can shift their axes much more quickly – that is with real world physics. They also use much less fuel to get up to high speeds (and back down again) then a larger ship would need. They are also useful for scouting and depending on weaponry can take out a big ship just as modern fighters/bombers can take out a ship.

The only negative to a manned space fighter is that smart drones might be able to do everything they can more cheaply.

Fighters, having less mass than a big ship, should be much more maneuverable. They could seek out a weak point in the ship's defense and attack it.

I think this all depends upon your view of space warfare. Star Wars, B5 and the like are far future scenarios where the tech is beyond our comprehension and ships can jump from place to place negating the long travel times between places in "real space" and it's the big ships that do the real fighting with fighters a side show that occasionally bares fruit. That said, in any setting that has heavily armored capitol ships, single seat fighters that dogfight would have no need to exist (other than to possibly harass small merchant ships, but they too would probably not exist). They wouldn't really be able to damage an enemy ship unless armed with some fantastical weapon, which the ships would also be armed with to no point for fighters. Even in a "dogfighty" setting like BSG fighters aren't truly all that relevant because the big boys can take so much punishment that you'd have to expend 100s of fighters to do anything worthwhile (and boy did they!).

In a more, shall we say "realistic", setting where they could be useful you'd have more fragile capitol ships. Personally, I think the Jovian Chronicles/Lightening Strike setting (even though it is mech-centric) shows quite well how fighters would truly behave. You would have some "fighters" with a small crew (say 3 or 4) that had sleeping bunks and toilet for extended picket patrols close in-system (smaller and cheaper than a true naval vessel) and those that are carried aboard stations or capitol ships for long range strike and CAP/bomber intercept. Small mass with large engines means they could out accelerate a capitol ship, boost to drift and make slashing "lightening strike" passes at capitol ships with missiles and mass drivers that can cause real damage. They couldn't really be used as an anti-missile defense because in this sort of setting missiles can far out-boost anything with a living being aboard, and probably jink and dodge with greater agility than could be targeted by a fighter-board weapon.

Another thing to think about: in any setting with lasers powerful enough to damage something a small fighter is really vulnerable. No need to really lead them or use a fancy targeting computer to project their course, just use a telescope or something to get them in the crosshairs and point and shoot. Almost any damage would be fatal, at least to the pilot. No fuel or damage the drives? Dude could run out of air/food/water before rescue. Break the cockpit, same thing…

From a strictly realistic view you've hit it on the head; fighters are questionable utility in deep space (versus just sending missiles or other unmanned platforms), they probably have more use in lower-orbit situations with a horizon, etc.

From a cinematic standpoint they are nearly indispensable to enable thrilling space heroics though.

And let another round of this battle begin; fight! :)

-Will

No one wants to read the 'Life and Times of a Cruise Missile AI'…

But I did read one interesting short story a while back, (Transhuman Setting) about a guy that was carrying on a romance in a Virtual Reality setting with a crewmember from a deep-space patrol cruiser.

He learned they were going to make a port call, so he arranged to send her flowers when they landed.

Next thing he has some investigators showing up at his apartment, trying to find out why he sent flowers to one of the cruiser's Autonomous Kill Vehicles…

Space fighters are like Battle Mechs. You have to just check your brain at the door and have fun.

@Ghostrunner, that's cool! Do you remember what it was called? The Synchronicity War series by Dietmar Arthur Wehr features AIs who end up having official recognition with military ranks. When an AI for a ship or fighter is manufactured, the other AIs "raise" it from infancy to maturity (pretty dang quickly) resulting in a well established persona, and in one side plot a similar human to AI relationship develops.

Don't remember the name – it might have been on one of the SJG forums.

If I remember, the AI's for the kill vehicles were distributed, so they didn't die when the missiles hit. But there were legal restrictions on AI's replicating themselves as if they were just another computer program.

Here is one mans considered opinion of fighters in space combat link

People simply enjoy manned space fighters. As others have pointed out, it's hard to get excited about a missile's AI.

Regardless of whether they're manned or unmanned, there's always the question of their role in space combat. For gaming purposes this is usually a balance issue. Too powerful and, like modern naval warfare, they can make battleships obselete (and we love our BBs and DNs as much as our fighters). Two weak and nobody fields them and you're left with WWI in space.

In our rules (soon to be published) they serve as the longer range weapon system beyond missile range. Upside: long range strike capability. Downside: you can't carry as many fighters as you can missiles and they can be shot by PD systems and interceptors.

However they're treated they need to be fun and balanced.

Ah yes, the excellent Rocketpunk Manifesto blog pointed the other case for fighters, or fighter-like craft; situations where the shoot/don't shoot decision has to made on short notice extremely close to the potential target (ie, crowded orbital space, potential third/fourth/fifth parties, etc). It's more like a space-helicopter gunship in that role I guess. For some reason, even though this sort of situation seems like it offers amazing fodder for games it's rarely used.

-Will

One thing that is often overlooked in the BSG setting is that when your enemy is an intelligent AI with sophisticated abilities to remotely compromise computer systems you probably would think twice about relying heavily on drones and guided missile systems in your combat forces. In that scenario manned fighters using mark one eyeballs for targeting and guns and ballistic (i.e. unguided) rockets for weapons systems start to make a lot more sense. It sucks when your long range drone strike gets retargeted against your own assets.

"Fighters, having less mass than a big ship, should be much more maneuverable. They could seek out a weak point in the ship's defense and attack it."

A big ship in space can be just as maneuverable as a fighter. Just have to apply enough thrust. And ship-based energy weapons would be much more powerful, causing instant kills on fihhters long before they could enter their effective range.

Big ships can be as as fast and accelerate as quickly as small ships in space, but are not necessarily as maneuverable. i.e. A big ship might not be able to rotate as quickly about an axis as a small ship.

For example, while a borg sphere might be able to make rapid rotational changes a long, slender design like a Nostromo or Galactica probably could not do so without putting excessive stresses on the ship.

I'm very skeptical that at the ranges and speeds we'll probably see in space combat that firing unguided weapons over iron sights will really be possible. You'll still be relying on computer guided targeting for all intents and purposes; the computer decides when to pull the trigger, the pilot just says it's ok to pull the trigger (which, in some situations, might be the most important decision).

Also if someone can hack your drones they can hack your carrier and set it's reactor to runaway meltdown or what have you, so against a super-hacker force you'll just have all sorts of interesting problems.

Regarding rotation, I'd assume if your space warfare technology makes rotational speed an important tactical concern then all ships regardless of size will be optimized for it.

-Will

You can only optimize so much for each size, even in zero gee there are still rotational stresses. Smaller ships have less stress, even smaller spheres vs larger ones.

If we get the "icky" out radiation weapons they would be very useful in space rather than lasers or missiles or (worst of all) unguided projectiles. Just "spray" a region of space with high radiation and fry the unhardened electronics (and people) on enemy ships in a wide swath.

For my games I tend to assume that weapons technology does *not* move into the 'horrible high energy cone of highly radioactive death' category since it makes for a REALLY grim space combat environment. :)

-Will

For rotation yes smaller is better, just pointing that all of your ships will end up looking pretty much the same if this is a major factor in tactical combat (ie, no long skinny designs). I'm not convinced it will be an important factor, but some weapon/defenses paradigms might make it so.

-Will

Regarding the hacking you mentioned: In the BSG setting, the humans actually regressed their technology to use analog systems as much as possible and completely eliminate networked computer technology. Stand alone computer systems were generally safe from being overtaken by the cylons unless they had physical access, but any network communication could be quickly compromised by them.

So, the reactor on your ship would have a lot of analog controls and no network to be hacked. The engineers would be standing at the reactor looking at gauges and using dials and switches to control it and reporting its status to the bridge over a hardline radio to keep it from being hacked.

In BSG the range of combat would likely be short because of the jump drive capability., which would allow you to instantaneouly close on the enemy and get your fighters into effective fighting range to use cannons and "dumb" missiles. I'm not arguing the "realism" of it, just pointing out the rules the setting operates under.

I'm fairly skeptical you could build a workable analog-only space warship of any size. At least one that's going to beat your digital-computer using adversaries. And even given all that, it doesn't mean that a manned fighter makes any sense, it just means that small craft period don't really work and big ships will rule the day completely. Why stick the cannons and dumb missiles on fighters when your big ship can just FTL jump into range and use them itself?

That's somewhat beside the point though in this case of course; if you're replicating a specific setting like BSG that already HAS fighters you need to make the fighters work. And I do appreciate that BSG made the effort to come up with a reason for their combat model, beyond the 'we need to cram two ships on the same TV screen' scripting issue most shows run in to.

-Will

Ever heard of the Apollo missions? It's amazing they made it to the moon and back with the technology they had at the time. Your smart phone is like a supercomputer in that time period. They had dozens of engineers doing calculations on paper using slide rules during the missions.

"So, the reactor on your ship would have a lot of analog controls and no network to be hacked. The engineers would be standing at the reactor looking at gauges and using dials and switches to control it and reporting its status to the bridge over a hardline radio to keep it from being hacked."

See: Actual U.S. Navy nuclear submarines, thanks to Hyman Rickover.

Yea, but how are you going to handle point defense when you can't network the weapon systems to your detection systems? Yelling out incoming vectors doesn't really work now, never mind when the incoming weapons might be moving at 2+ km/s…. Still fairly skeptical.

-Will

> For my games I tend to assume that weapons technology does *not* move into the 'horrible high energy cone of highly radioactive death'

Can't argue with that!

BSG had "Magic" hacking. You can have computer system communicate and not be capable of being hacked. Hard wiring the programs is one way. Only allowing certain forms of data across and ignoring bad data is another.

BSG had "Magic" hacking. You can have computer system communicate and not be capable of being hacked. Hard wiring the programs is one way. Only allowing certain forms of data across and ignoring bad data is another.

Indeed, plus encryption methods are outrunning decryption methods and I suspect that will continue to be the case well into the future, meaning that real-time attacks on a system will only get more challenging as time goes on. You'd have to already have a 'backdoor' into the target system; which is actually what happened in BSG with the Cylon seducing Baltar, IIRC.

-Will

Point defense systems in BSG consisted of dense flak barrages and not hit to kill systems like we are moving toward in real life. Again, I'm not arguing the realism of it, just pointing out the rules the show operated under. At least this type of point defense system is internally conistent with the show's other assumptions.

Yeah, the Cylon hacking in BSG wasn't so much magical as it was infiltrating and compromising the systems undetected ahead of time. There was ironically a lot of social engineering involved with Six seducing and compromising the lead scientist who designed the human military's new computer systems.

It's funny to think about, but the most effective weapon in the Cylon arsenal was a sexy robot.

Social engineering to allow for unfettered network access it probably the single MOST effective and dangerous method for attacking any modern computer system. Ironically, it's SO effective that I suspect it might render most forms of combat, space warfare included, superfluous. Weaponized sexy robots indeed!

But it's more fun to speculate about some near or far future blood and thunder! :)

-Will

The excuse I used in my game was that ships can be shielded from lasers using aerosols and chaff, and the point of the fighter is to get inside that shield without compromising your own. Once at point-blank range, the fighters can then use different weapons (solid shot) that the enemy can dodge at laser ranges.

If you don't trust the on-board AI to do the job, then you need a live crew because remotely-piloted vehicles can be hacked or jammed.

I'm really talking about "riders" than pew-pew "fighters".

The other thing I do is include big AI-driven missiles that don't work quite right. They're devastating when they hit, but they're obviously in the teething period. So even in my reality, manned fighters are on their way out.

For reference, a link to the product page: link

I think the big uses of fighters would be space to ground attacks, shepherding missiles with laser communications that can't be jammed or hacked, synthesizing big arrays, peeking behind planets for alien fleets, and simply being a large body of small fast targets. Equivalent tonnage in a single vessel might match or exceed speed and fire power but one or two good missile hits will kill it (barring effective space opera force fields of course). Killing a swarm of flies takes a great deal more time than killing an elephant.

There are a couple reasons computers might not work as well as a human pilot, though none of them have to do with high gee maneuvers. First off, social reasons, the pilot can be prosecuted for war crimes and computers probably can't. Interstellar law may very well require a responsible party to direct military action to prevent the kind of clean sweep highly efficient killing computers are capable of.

Second is the more difficult issues of hacking, communications can be hacked and codes can be cracked but human minds are probably less easily taken over. Bearing in mind that psionics are space opera and this is a discussion of realistic and plausible roles for fighters.

Third having a human on board and in control provides some creative problem solving capabilities which computers might never match. Admittedly this might be duplicated in computers but it would probably result in a far less efficient computer due to the kind of mass cross referencing of unrelated data in a human mind.

Depending on the physics in place they may not be faster but they can always outmanuever a larger ship since they can shift their axes much more quickly – that is with real world physics. They also use much less fuel to get up to high speeds (and back down again) then a larger ship would need.

Until someone creates an honest-to-Einstein inertialess/reactionless drive, for any offensive mission it takes 10 tons of fuel to get a 100-ton missile to the target, while a 100-ton fighter will take 10 tons of fuel to get there, 10 tons of fuel to stop, 10 tons of fuel to go back, and another 10 tons of fuel to stop when it returns to the carrier. Let's say that structure and sensors is another 10 tons for both missile and fighter.

80 tons of missile payload versus about 40 tons of fighter payload (since the cockpit and life support systems will probably take another 10 tons).

They are also useful for scouting and depending on weaponry can take out a big ship just as modern fighters/bombers can take out a ship.

Scouting only applies when a planet/star takes up a significant arc of sky.

And while fighters might be able to pack shipkilling weapons, ships can very easily pack fighter-killing lasers, and while optical-frequency lasers have a depressingly short range, they are the ultimate point&click interface.

"So, the reactor on your ship would have a lot of analog controls and no network to be hacked. The engineers would be standing at the reactor looking at gauges and using dials and switches to control it and reporting its status to the bridge over a hardline radio to keep it from being hacked."

See: Actual U.S. Navy nuclear submarines, thanks to Hyman Rickover.

There *are* some digital displays back aft (conveying information that is most readily grasped in digital form), but the Operating System for the plant runs on human brains with very few automatic systems. The US Navy has never had a powerplant accident, while the heavily-automated Russian Navy has had several.

First off, social reasons, the pilot can be prosecuted for war crimes and computers probably can't.

That's going to be a huge argument in favor of computer pilots.

Our next release, "Make It So: 23rd Century Space Warfare", will be out next week. It includes fighters, missiles, and drones each of which has its own advantage or disadvantage.

Given the challenges of interstellar travel we decided to focus on entertainment value and interesting tactical decisions rather than trying to justify particular technologies.

In "Make It So" fighters have their place and don't dominate like they did in WWII or today. Since they "swim" in the same medium as the largest dreadnought they're just another choice in the game's combined arms rock-paper-scissors combat model.

The game's victory conditions also put fighters in their proper place relative to other weapon systems. Victory is determined not just by blowing up starships but also capturing them, controlling the space around the game's terrain (a planet and its moons) and even landing assault troops on the planet and its moons. In that context, since fighters lack the endurance to count towards space supremecy/superiority and can't capture starships, they mostly contribute towards victory conditions rather than achieving them entirely on their own.

In some ways they function simply as a capital ship's longest range weapon system option. They're vulnerable to other fighter interceptors and massed particle cannons which double as point defense weapons, and small agile starships can evade their attacks. But their extraordinary speed and agility allows them to hit the weaker flank and aft shields of less agile capital ships and they're useful for pursuing and finishing crippled enemies.

But, like the OP, our primary reason for including them is that they're a sci fi staple and really fun! Many of us grew up with Star Wars, Battle Star Galactica, and Buck Rogers. All featured star fighters and in a miniatures game there's something dramatic about launching a wave of fighters and watching them stream across the table towards the enemy fleet and its own cloud of fighters.

I believe that the key to good fighter rules is having a balanced role (ie a reason for being on the table…the role…and being neither to powerful nor too weak which can be a challenge to get right).

My favorite way of thinking about them: they're the fleet's skirmishers which can tip the balance of power between opposing heavy units if used appropriately and if not countered effectively.

Visceral Impact Studios I did grow up to those movies/tv showa but you forgot one show from the land of the Rising Sun which is Space Cruiser Yamato aka StarBlazers.

You have it all in this Space Opera I mean it's WWII in Outer Space what's not to like about it and this classic tv show was turned into a decent set of miniature rules as well.

Yup, totally forgot to mention Star Blazers, one of my first favorites (along with battle of the planets). I know it sounds weird but I remember liking how the weapon beams/pulses/whatever actually took time to travel to their targets. And in Starblazers the ships felt like large capital ships rather than today's "enormous space fighters" seen in the recent Star Trek TV series.

The Starblazers' cartoon definitely influenced "Make It So". The starship combat, maneuver, and design rules don't treat hulls like amorphous stuffed sausages.

Moving from fighter to capital ship, hulls behave differently in areas such as speed, agility, defense/offense potential, and even fuel and cost efficiency. Small, agile starships tend to rely on rely on evasive maneuvers to evade heavier weapons and need to be engaged with guided or high ROF weapons.

Large, ponderous starships have shields and hull integrity values that make them virtually immune to light weapons so they need to be bit with heavy weapons or attacked from their vulnerable flanks and rears.

Back to the OP's question and shows like Starblazers, there is a clear connection between wet navy combat and most sci-fi space combat. That can be taken too far (losing some of sci-fi's unique flavor) but it can also provide a convenient reference point for many gamers that enable them to understand a game or setting without a degree in physics! :-)

It's a balancing act and each player has an individual preference for a place on the spectrum from "Hellcats over Proxima Centauri Prime" to "My Pilot's Ground Crew Just Aged 50 Years Relative to Him Because He Travelled Near C".

(For "Make It So" we tried to make things flexible and fun first and foremost e.g. the the rules are written for use with rulers, hexes and squares…not just "rules with a grid addendum" but all three approaches directly integrated into the rules text and mechanics…and for all measurement each "Tactical Unit" equals 2", 5cm, 1 hex, or 1 square…use which ever approach you e joy.)

If you liked the original "Starblazers"/Space Battleship Yamato then, you're gonna love Yamato 2199 now:

YouTube link

YouTube link

Leland R. Erickson
Metal Express
metal-express.net

Thanks Leleand! Those videos are amazing! Wish someone would make a PC game with those graphics. Also glad to see they retained the slow-moving cannon fire…

I'm in the 'love watching fighters dogfight, hate them as quick ship killers', but I 'suffer' the little friends now and them.

Did want to mention Heldensagen Vom Kosmosinsel, where big ships are in such numbers as to seem to inhabit Napoleonic battles, though forming squares stretches even my pliant credulity.

There were space fighters and carriers, but they far from dominated the battle.

Doug

Doug they're times when Space Fighters and Carriers did in fact dominate the battle.

To give an example in the second season of Star Blazers when the Earth was facing off against the Comet Empire the Earth command came up with a plan to take out the Comet Empire's Carrier Fleet.

So the Yamato and the Carrier Force of the Earth Defense Fleet lead the attack and did indeed wipe out the Comet Empire's Carrier Fleet which bought time for the rest of the Earth Defense Fleet to attack the Comet Empire's main Fleet.

So Space Fighter's do have a purpose out there in most cases.