Starfighters are impractical.

[Khas 12,158]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdUhfYIq8i8

[Tyralak 12,068]

Some good points made in that video. I've always thought the idea of starfighters was kind of silly to begin with.

[scvn2812 504]

It depends on how your universe really plays out. In universes where the fighters have the ability to get close enough (basically WW2 distances) that tracking them is difficult then they work, assuming they are capable of carrying enough fire power to meaningfully menace an opponent. This is basically the excuse for most sci-fi since most of them came just FTL in within spitting distance. On the other hand, once you get to a certain scale of ship, the usefulness of fighters is questionable without some deus ex to excuse them. Star Wars fighters can pass through the outer reaches of shield envelopes and hit subsystems that are lightly or unshielded. B5 fighters don't have to worry about shields and capital ship weapons are very big, obvious targets. I'm not entirely sure why no one thought of mounting smaller, more agile interceptor guns like the ones on B5 on a starship until the Victory-class though.

 

The reality of course is that if the assumptions of a universe don't allow for FTL-ing in at "pistols at dawn" ranges, said fighters would have to cross the vastness of space and probably take much longer than it would take for someone with a laser, even a big clunky one, to melt the fighter a thousand kilometers away. Unless said fighters have enough acceleration and delta V to be constantly thrusting randomly at at least dozens of Gees to clear their silhouette its bye bye fighter.

[Jason 27]

What about election warfare if done well one man fighter guess weapon cause damage could depend eyes able to hit targets.

[Khas 12,158]

While electronic warfare, or exotic particles (like the Minovsky particles in Mobile Suit Gundam), would reduce ranges, it doesn't change the fact that starfighters would still be unable to dodge lasers and particle beams, as well as other weapons that move near-c. And the fact that you couldn't get nearly as much power out of a starfighter's reactor as you could a capital ship's, and the whole concept of the starfighter comes crashing down. It's as they said, it would be like a speedboat (the starfighter) vs. a full-fledged Navy vessel (the cruiser). Or, as we learned in my History class in 11th grade (2007-2008), like the pirate motorboat that tried to take on a US Navy frigate.

[scvn2812 504]

Effective electronic warfare is very, very difficult in space. Atomic Rockets does a much better job of explaining the problems than I can.

 

I believe the cliff notes is that passive detection methods like picking up EM signals is so much more effective in space due to the lack of atmosphere that at ranges where you're close enough to fight, you're basically naked to one another. They can tell almost everything about you from your heat signature and you can't fake EM emissions of a starship magnitude without an actual starship magnitude power plant. Even if you could fake it, a good telescope will give you away every time.

Edited February 3, 2013 by scvn2812

[Khas 12,158]

So, it looks like having some Minovsky particle analogue is the only way you can justify starfighters.

[scvn2812 504]

Well, there's the analogy of torpedo boats. The pirate motor boat gets nailed because the pirates don't have access to the kinds of compact destructive hardware that would give them the ability to damage a warship. They don't have the budget for that and it's not the intended purpose of the pirate boat in the first place. The pirate's goal is to put pirates aboard a ship and then get away quickly.

 

For a useful fighter, it comes down to how much fat there is on the typical warship in a setting. If the fuel, parts, crew provisions and assorted other stuff a ship carries that is not directly related to its combat power takes up enough space then the possibility does exist to build a miniature ship without all of that stuff and for it to devote 100% of its volume to the sole purpose of spending only a few hours away from home and blowing stuff up. Which basically is what we can assume most universes have done.

 

However it requires a fighter to have the acceleration to put enough uncertainty in her position at any given moment to survive the approach to its target or to be deployed within a close enough range of the target to be hard for weapons to track it. The Earth Alliance is probably the most inexcusable as they don't often get to start out at knife fight ranges and their weapons have the reaction time to disrupt enemy fire which is much faster than the fighters. And their fighters are limited to human endurance for acceleration rates so it becomes even more hard to justify.

 

They are possible but it requires hand waving in how you set up the universe:

 

A fighter such as an X-Wing or Andromeda's fighters from a universe where quadruple gee accelerations are the norm can be kilometers away from where you thought it was going to be just by tapping on the gas.

 

in BSG 2k3 energy weapons are apparently not practical for warfare and fighters deploy within a few dozen kilometers of their target at most.

 

In Star Trek, fighters can drop out of warp within kilometers of the target.

 

B5...is really, really hard to make excuses for. I really don't know why you can't mount a few dozen Starfury cannons on an Omega or why capital ships can't just carve them up with beam weapons from kilometers away.

Edited February 3, 2013 by scvn2812

[scvn2812 504]

Also the analogy between the pirates and the destroyer is a sea one. Space is much more like air war in that far more volume has the be given over to propulsion if you want to get anywhere in a reasonable time and it's virtually impossible to have a realistic space craft with naval armoring that is also capable of reasonable acceleration. A big space ship will have more in common with a B52 than a destroyer. So it may be very likely that small caliber weapons can shoot up a big ship.

[Khas 12,158]

They are possible but it requires hand waving in how you set up the universe:

 

A fighter such as an X-Wing or Andromeda's fighters from a universe where quadruple gee accelerations are the norm can be kilometers away from where you thought it was going to be just by tapping on the gas.

 

in BSG 2k3 energy weapons are apparently not practical for warfare and fighters deploy within a few dozen kilometers of their target at most.

 

In Star Trek, fighters can drop out of warp within kilometers of the target.

 

As I said, some Minovsky particle analog. Something in-universe that justifies it, even if it doesn't obey our own laws of physics.

[Khas 12,158]

Also the analogy between the pirates and the destroyer is a sea one. Space is much more like air war in that far more volume has the be given over to propulsion if you want to get anywhere in a reasonable time and it's virtually impossible to have a realistic space craft with naval armoring that is also capable of reasonable acceleration. A big space ship will have more in common with a B52 than a destroyer. So it may be very likely that small caliber weapons can shoot up a big ship.

 

Even that's an imperfect analogy, as the big ships are going to be MUCH bigger. As it said, space warfare will be its own unique thing.

[scvn2812 504]

If you ever get a chance, pick up Through Struggle The Stars, it's 3 bucks for an e book and does a wonderful job of stitching together a very unique feeling space war model that has very little hand waving. It's heavily inspired by the ideas of Atomic Rockets.

[Jason 27]

Effective electronic warfare is very, very difficult in space. Atomic Rockets does a much better job of explaining the problems than I can.

 

I believe the cliff notes is that passive detection methods like picking up EM signals is so much more effective in space due to the lack of atmosphere that at ranges where you're close enough to fight, you're basically naked to one another. They can tell almost everything about you from your heat signature and you can't fake EM emissions of a starship magnitude without an actual starship magnitude power plant. Even if you could fake it, a good telescope will give you away every time.

 

What about adaptive camouflage I talk try light bend around object making invisable at least fare nake eye goes. EM emission taking fact type spacecaft differnt type fuel. It very likley future some spacecaft going run nuclear, some going anti matter and some go run on solar power. Fighter run anti matter well able making it self look giving off same amount level EM emission starship running nuclear power.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_camouflage

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metamaterial_cloaking

[Khas 12,158]

Except that they'd still be able to track the fighter by thermal emissions. Heat is a big problem in space, which is why any real-life starship is going to have big-ass radiators.

[Jason 27]

Except that they'd still be able to track the fighter by thermal emissions. Heat is a big problem in space, which is why any real-life starship is going to have big-ass radiators.

 

First tactic starfighter likley used different but that likley chance when could us jet fighter first place. Dog fighters not the same way used either. However star fighter interplanetary or even interstellar war.

 

Point instead privite space industry can send people space for maybe orbit around Earth. You think Government going build space bombers and space fighter for millinery reasons at least Earth orbit. This guess that going main thing used when war over Astriniond belt.

 

Secound part question lasers used when KE weapons giving lot bigger punch go real high speed 80% speed light. Someone hear point if one Mars moons send flying at Earth 80% speed light enough destroy Earth many time over. Even smell bullet shoot 80% speed light likley fire more entire world nuclear weapons at single one man fighter. If One fighter made tough enough that might also required. Laser not be powerful enough cause real harm.

[Khas 12,158]

That's just what a particle beam is. Mass fired at near c​.

[Khas 12,158]

Also, the Asteroid Belt is actually fairly clear of asteroids. While it is true that there are thousands of asteroids in the belt, their combined mass is only 4% that of our moon's, and their spread over a huge distance. The only reason it's called the asteroid belt is because the rest of the Solar System is even more empty when it comes to asteroids.

[Jason 27]

Also techology existed slow light might possible slow down laser beam in future allow fighter avoid getting hit first place .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slow_light

[Khas 12,158]

Well, for one thing, space is a vacuum, so there's no way light can slow down in it. Secondly, why would anyone slow down their laser to begin with? You're going to want to hit a target as fast as you can, and objects that move at the speed of light are as good as you're going to get.

[scvn2812 504]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that he might be thinking of using that trick as a counter measure to lasers.

 

This doesn't really add much to the argument one way or another but I did a little reading and found it took between 30 and 40 bombs and torpedoes to sink Musashi and Yamato. Scale that up to Galactica 2k3 or an ISD and you're looking at thousands of pieces of ordinance assuming fighter bombers are proportionately as powerful to proper naval ships in their respective universes as in WW2. No wonder the Cylons break out the nukes when feasible and the Rebels go after subsystems.

[Jason 27]

It not going to be like World War II regardless even mordan day dog fighter nothing like dog fighter World War II. Worn-hole legal under law of physical then it might possible fighter quick hit and run attacks. disable the anti fighter laser basic guns and then attack the starship. It real depend how starship design how long it take put shield if armor has soft spots own. It kind like if fighter close enough get total surprise by something like worm-hole it might allow something fighter deploy problem tantic used thing attack like giant bomber in World War II more then navy like battle. Why world make fleet in science fiction look like warship fleets also biggest problem when come realistic space battles.

Edited February 11, 2013 by Jason

[Jason 27]

Also it possible build pretty good defense against laser general Check out

Page 10,Physics of the Impossible by Michio, copywriter 2008,ISBN 978-0-385-52069-0

It going into how nanotechnologly could in pratice be around spacecaft made right provide protect against a laser base weapon. You need read third and forth paragraph for more information on how work.

So is possible laser not be used all real future wars or at least come anti fighter weapons.

[scvn2812 504]

Everyone knows space war will not be WW2 in space but at the same time it is undeniably the most popular reference point for space war in American scifi. Which is why I think it might be informative to where appropriate, to carefully make analogies to WW2 when considering universes that blatantly use this model like Star Wars, Babylon 5, Star Trek once they added fighters, and both Galacticas. In the absence of conflicting evidence, I don't think it's a planet sized leap of faith to assume a ship that looks like a WW2 battlewagon with rockets welded on is armored like one or that unless we see more dramatic damage, that fighters that look and act like Spitfires and Zeroes in space are armed proportionately. Not as in they literally are armed like said craft or built with WW2 materials but rather a fighter is about as powerful in relation to a capital ship as you'd expect. Naturally this is a generalization that can be disproven with conflicting observations such as fighters that rend capital ships of any size or are shown to be able to carry space wmds. However, it's a good starting point to fill in the gaps.

[scvn2812 504]

Also I'm willing to bet the adaptive nanotechnology armor described in that book is considering lasers with at best the power of a nuclear power plant behind them but maybe not even that powerful. Fully neutralizing a gigawatt laser without armor too dense for plausible space war is something I'll believe when I read it.

[Khas 12,158]

Well, I suppose you could also justify starfighters if your engines put out some particle that screws with sensors, like the Minovsky particles from Mobile Suit Gundam. Maybe magnetic monopoles could fill the real-world version of Minovsky particles. Small wormhole drives, ala nBSG would also come in handy.

 

But then, they could just use particle beam weapons, like protons, neutrons, positrons, polarons, thorons, antiprotons, etc. Not to mention high-yield explosives to take out squadrons of fighters at once. Nukes, matter-antimatter weapons, and mini black hole weapons would reek havoc on fighters.

 

And no, ST didn't make up polarons and thorons. A polaron is an electron with a polarization field, while a thoron is a thorium nucleus.