• Welcome to Autism Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Aspergers Syndrome, Autism, High Functioning Autism and related conditions.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Private Member only forums for more serious discussions that you may wish to not have guests or search engines access to.
    • Your very own blog. Write about anything you like on your own individual blog.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon! Please also check us out @ https://www.twitter.com/aspiescentral

Sci-Fi: why I think "space fighters" are stupid

Xerces Blue

Evil Overload
When most people think of space fighters they usually think of X-wings and Tie Fighters.
A setting whos combat is based of WWII air/sea combat.
So why where Aircraft so effective against Surface warships?
Mostly Maneuverability.
So why where they so maneuverable?
Because Aircraft are moving through Air while the Warships are moving through water.
So what if they where moving through the same medium?

Then they have to obey the same rules.

now we're not looking at fighter/bombers vs battleships - we're looking at speed boats vs battleships(Carriers are only applicable when FTL comes into play and that depends a lot on how FTL works).

The old school prestige fleet/Jeune Ecole(young school) arguments are what we're looking at then.
But in space...

So the maneuverability is limited less by the mass of your craft and more by the G resistance of your crew.
So for reference Modern Missile electronics can withstand 5,000G
Humans in good fitness with training and a fight suit can handle 9G or -2G for Very short amounts of time.

Doesn't matter if there are enertial compensators or not, if they exist a larger ship can use them to the same effect or better)

So the Jeune Ecole would tell you that
- the offensive power spread between more fragile but cheaper and therefore more plentiful platforms will beat concentrated power and durability.

The Old School says
- that larger vessels are more capable and that the crew requirements do not increase proportionately to increase in size.
- That you gain effectiveness and ruggedness through not having to minimize equipment (kind of like how your average (Modern) smart phone isn't as strong than the desktop I built in 2012 and probably wont last as long)
 
On one hand... yes.

On the other hand, in many sci-fi scenarios, you're dealing with DRASTIC increases in technological everything. The rules are often different for that reason.

Buuuuuut, it depends on the series. Star Wars for instance was not meant to make total sense in that manner... it's more about the drama of the conflict, and I suspect this is why the actual tech elements are so very rarely explained in that series... they "just work, because" and that's pretty much it.

Then you've got Star Trek, which explains the absolute heck outta EVERYTHING and uses a lot of very different concepts. One thing to note is that the idea of "capital ships" doesnt seem to really be a thing in that universe. There's just... "ships" and "stations", with the difference being that the stations just plain dont really move... they're huge for logistical reasons. And the power/strength differences between ship types mostly depends on "configuration" rather than size, as well as how advanced a given ship is compared to others. Like, a newer variation on the Enterprise design can outdo the older ones in every way, that sort of thing. And also of course the skill of the crew, that's the other thing that matters.

Now granted, there are exceptions, but these exceptions seem to almost entirely consist of the Borg, whose "ships" are almost a bizarre combination of ship and station, and appropriately huge to match.

Whereas Star Wars, with its emphasis on drama above all else, wants the combat to be just as dramatic... so a particularly threatening enemy must be enormous, regardless of just what "type" of enemy it is. If it's powerful, it MUST be big... even if it doesnt make sense.

Honestly the biggest offender in Star Wars to me isnt the capital ships: It's the walkers... every single type. Slow and prone to falling over if you look at them too hard, often unable to get back up if they do fall over. But again, they're dramatic... big stompy things are threatening, while stuff rolling around isnt as much. They still dont make any bloody sense though.

And of course Star Wars aint the only offender here. Lots of series just mimic it and go for the big=dramatic idea. Because it looks good on screen. With series like that I always got the feeling that you're just... not supposed to think about it too hard, because the logic of the series kinda breaks down if you do.

I've never been too fond of the Star Wars style when it comes to this stuff. I often find that the best sci-fi comes from books, not TV / movies, as being bloody huge doesnt amount to much in a book.


I dont think I'm really articulating any of this very well, hard to explain what I'm thinking with all this. But... that's my thoughts on the subject nonetheless. I dont really have much to say beyond that.
 
Some of this would depend on targeting systems. Star trek weapons are highly accurate and maneuverable makes fighters easily picked off at long range. As they say in a new hope the fighters of star wars are too fast for their ship mounted weapons so the fighters make sense. But misery is definitely correct, in a universe with fast moving hover technology, tall walking personnel carriers make no sense, but its really is just for the drama.

On a side note I believe in a fair, tech only, sub light, fight I think the federation would defeat the empire, due to superior weaponry, maneuverability, and tactics, but all the empire has to do is run because the star wars ships FTL speed is faster.
 
What about the ships in Call of Duty infinite warfare? I feel like that was an attempt to bridge our current tech with space tech.
 
I would think to consider the issue of space warfare, one would first have to establish the conditions that exist, such as:

1. What are you facing.

2. What are you trying to accomplish.

3. What are you capable of building.
 
Points taken.

I'm often amused by how so many works of science fiction often contain one too many references to earth and humanity in terms of technology and physics of the past and present.

Of course literature and films have forms of oversight. Where producers and publishers may want to keep things within the realm of what their intended audience can understand and relate to.

Personally I very much liked the film "The Arrival" fascinating because it totally deviates from a perspective of humanity, communication and earthbound science pertinent to alien visitors. And it apparently did well at the box office, making a respectable profit. Yet since then I haven't seen anything indicating a real trend in such a direction creatively speaking.

I suppose it's a safer bet to fall back on what you think your audience knows. -Much like fast food. :rolleyes:
 
Two things that always bugged me are delta v and sound. There is no sound in space therefore a space battle would be quiet, and nothing can swoop around in vacuum, there is nothing to push against
 
Two things that always bugged me are delta v and sound. There is no sound in space therefore a space battle would be quiet, and nothing can swoop around in vacuum, there is nothing to push against

How true. At least writer Dan O'Bannon got it right with the film "Alien".

- "In space no one can hear you scream." :p

Hollywood probably wanted to sue him for that one...:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
What about the ships in Call of Duty infinite warfare? I feel like that was an attempt to bridge our current tech with space tech.
I honestly forgot that game existed. Says a lot about its success. Its zombies mode looks fun, tho.
 
Honestly Star Trek's tech is all Technobabble.
It doesn't make sense.
For example - Defector dishes and the Bussard Collectors.
So on a star fleet vessel you have a defector dish(on the "main hull") that is supposed to project an energy field that moves particles out of the path of the vessel.
The Bussard Collectors(on the nacelles) project an energy field that collects hydrogen particles to be used as fuel.
So you have one projector that moves things away and another that draws things in - with the pusher in front of the puller.
Considering that most Star Fleet ships have their nacelles in line with the saucer wouldn't that either cause the system to fail or cause massive friction against the hull.
That's all kinds of stupid.
It's like putting a turbofan in front of your engine intake pushing air away from the intake starving your engine.

Star Trek's tech isn't internally consistent and is therefor nonsense.
Star Trek doesn't explain everything it uses jargon that doesn't mean anything,
And they try to patch it up after the fact.

Also Stations have to have a degree of thrust or they cannot maintain orbit, entropy is a thing.
The ISS gets boosted regularly to maintain orbit.
If you don't what to deal with that you have to go to the Lagrange points.

And Stations aren't a good defense anyway.
Point of fact dodging bullets isn't realistic.
So dodging lasers and near relativistic projectiles isn't either.
With Lasers the point when you know a laser has been fired at you is when it hits.
Radar and Ladar are both light speed sensor systems. in active mode you send out a pulse or radio or light radiation depending on the type, wait for it to bounce back and that tells you there's a target at x degrees and y range.
so by the time you know about it you're already hit.

Yeah I love when people say they can dodge red shifted projectiles always makes for a good laugh.

fighters are all well and good when your fire-control computer is clockwork dealing with 13 variables many of them manually impute.
not so sure with electric computers.
Never mind that some of those 13 variables those fire-control computers have to deal with don't exist in space.
Pitch and Role from waves for example.
How dense/humid the air is.

Kind of like how bots actually have an RNG element added to make them miss to make the game fun.
Biggest difference is the Bot knows exactly where you are and where you're going.

Try playing Sudden death(one shot, one kill unless you do a shock combo[AOE]) vs max level bots in UT and note they STILL have a "miss chance".
 
Last edited:
Further more the Prime Directive is MORAL COWARDICE!
It's standing aside for Theft, Rape, Slavery, Genocide because of ******** notions of "We should let them learn on their own"
Would you do the same if it was your kid involved?
 
Honestly Star Trek's tech is all Technobabble.
It doesn't make sense.
For example - Defector dishes and the Bussard Collectors.
So on a star fleet vessel you have a defector dish(on the "main hull") that is supposed to project an energy field that moves particles out of the path of the vessel.
The Bussard Collectors(on the nacelles) project an energy field that collects hydrogen particles to be used as fuel.
So you have one projector that moves things away and another that draws things in - with the pusher in front of the puller.
Considering that most Star Fleet ships have their nacelles in line with the saucer wouldn't that either cause the system to fail or cause massive friction against the hull.
That's all kinds of stupid.
It's like putting a turbofan in front of your engine intake pushing air away from the intake starving your engine.

Star Trek's tech isn't internally consistent and is therefor nonsense.
Star Trek doesn't explain everything it uses jargon that doesn't mean anything,
And they try to patch it up after the fact.

Also Stations have to have a degree of thrust or they cannot maintain orbit, entropy is a thing.
The ISS gets boosted regularly to maintain orbit.
If you don't what to deal with that you have to go to the Lagrange points.

And Stations aren't a good defense anyway.
Point of fact dodging bullets isn't realistic.
So dodging lasers and near relativistic projectiles isn't either.
With Lasers the point when you know a laser has been fired at you is when it hits.
Radar and Ladar are both light speed sensor systems. in active mode you send out a pulse or radio or light radiation depending on the type, wait for it to bounce back and that tells you there's a target at x degrees and y range.
so by the time you know about it you're already hit.

Yeah I love when people say they can dodge red shifted projectiles always makes for a good laugh.

fighters are all well and good when your fire-control computer is clockwork dealing with 13 variables many of them manually impute.
not so sure with electric computers.
Never mind that some of those 13 variables those fire-control computers have to deal with don't exist in space.
Pitch and Role from waves for example.
How dense/humid the air is.

Kind of like how bots actually have an RNG element added to make them miss to make the game fun.
Biggest difference is the Bot knows exactly where you are and where you're going.

Try playing Sudden death(one shot, one kill unless you do a shock combo[AOE]) vs max level bots in UT and note they STILL have a "miss chance".

Just as a bit of context, I'm *way* more familiar with the books than the actual show. This being mainly because I tend to just not have much patience for TV and movies, particularly as I cant be bloody bothered to sit through commercials. The writing in the books tends to be more... "stable". Like, a LOT more stable.

Unfortunately, while the TV shows still have a lot that I like about them... they're still TV shows, and even Star Trek, in TV form, must adhere to some of the rules of drama. Not even CLOSE to as much as Star Wars or some others, but still, it's on TV, there's gonna be some of that there. I strongly suspect this is also why the tech bits in the TV shows can be a bit inconsistent. I mean... I dont envy the job that the writers of such shows have to do. They have to come up with all this stuff, make it fit in a certain time frame, WITH appropriately spaced interruptions for STUPID FREAKING ADS (ugh), and all these other aspects have to be fit together properly to make it work as a television broadcast. This then also must be done while allowing for proper camera angles, conversations that arent too long (not a problem in books), and of course you cant get TOO techy on TV because the explanations get too long.

Books dont have, well, ANY of those restrictions, so that's what I'm used to (and also WHY I read books instead of watching TV... I like for the WRITERS to be in total control of the story and how its told, rather than having to work around lots of weird little TV rules). So that's where the consistency is, in my experience with it. I usually forget to mention that part whenever I'm talking about Star Trek or sci-fi, so people usually assume I'm *just* talking about the show.

Though of course even with books you get some issues, since it's also gonna be about who wrote the specific book, some writers are better than others, and....

Well, that's media for you, I guess. It's all screwy.

I was going to say something more here but I now cannot remember what it was.
 
Honestly Star Trek's tech is all Technobabble.
It doesn't make sense.
For example - Defector dishes and the Bussard Collectors.
So on a star fleet vessel you have a defector dish(on the "main hull") that is supposed to project an energy field that moves particles out of the path of the vessel.
The Bussard Collectors(on the nacelles) project an energy field that collects hydrogen particles to be used as fuel.
So you have one projector that moves things away and another that draws things in - with the pusher in front of the puller.
Considering that most Star Fleet ships have their nacelles in line with the saucer wouldn't that either cause the system to fail or cause massive friction against the hull.
That's all kinds of stupid.
It's like putting a turbofan in front of your engine intake pushing air away from the intake starving your engine.

Star Trek's tech isn't internally consistent and is therefor nonsense.
Star Trek doesn't explain everything it uses jargon that doesn't mean anything,
And they try to patch it up after the fact.

Also Stations have to have a degree of thrust or they cannot maintain orbit, entropy is a thing.
The ISS gets boosted regularly to maintain orbit.
If you don't what to deal with that you have to go to the Lagrange points.

And Stations aren't a good defense anyway.
Point of fact dodging bullets isn't realistic.
So dodging lasers and near relativistic projectiles isn't either.
With Lasers the point when you know a laser has been fired at you is when it hits.
Radar and Ladar are both light speed sensor systems. in active mode you send out a pulse or radio or light radiation depending on the type, wait for it to bounce back and that tells you there's a target at x degrees and y range.
so by the time you know about it you're already hit.

Yeah I love when people say they can dodge red shifted projectiles always makes for a good laugh.

fighters are all well and good when your fire-control computer is clockwork dealing with 13 variables many of them manually impute.
not so sure with electric computers.
Never mind that some of those 13 variables those fire-control computers have to deal with don't exist in space.
Pitch and Role from waves for example.
How dense/humid the air is.

Kind of like how bots actually have an RNG element added to make them miss to make the game fun.
Biggest difference is the Bot knows exactly where you are and where you're going.

Try playing Sudden death(one shot, one kill unless you do a shock combo[AOE]) vs max level bots in UT and note they STILL have a "miss chance".

Yes, but you do have to be careful when interfering. Remember what deep do-do the 6th Doctor got himself into for wiping out the Vervoids.

000000000000.gif


000000000000000.gif


;)
 
Honestly @Tom, I think I missed that Doctor Who episode, as I don't remember it.
I would think to consider the issue of space warfare, one would first have to establish the conditions that exist, such as:

1. What are you facing.

2. What are you trying to accomplish.

3. What are you capable of building.

These are good things to consider and I will address them one by one in following posts.

@Misery I've only ever read 1 Star Trek novel and It was pretty old, I recall the the NCC-1701 going something along the lines of warp 40 because of outside influence, which probably would fly with when it was written But not from TNG and beyond

I got the book from a sale at my local library - was worth more than the 25 cents I spent on it.
Someday I might finish the other 2 novels in the book - the second one was setting up for Kirk to fight a Duel with a Klingon on a medieval world... with swords and in disguise...
Didn't know Star Fleet taught sword fighting of any sort. (I prefer Infantry sabers and Lange messers)
 
@Tom
#1 - If you're dealing with an orbital war you will probably have similar intel as a war on earth.

If you're dealing with an Interplanetary war you could compare your intel with the difference between the the Seven Years' War and the First Opium War/Anglo-Chinese war (The Honorable East India Trading Company Vs the Qing Dynasty

For Interstellar war you're looking at either "Read the Bones"(no FTL) or age of sail communication lags (FTL Travel but no FTL Comms if you're looking in the right direction) or
Like Radio but your potential might be a different species than you with a different culture, looks, language, motivations and technology.
Standard Intel methods might not work or give false intel

Build for what Makes sense according to what you believe is possible.

Fighters don't make sense unless you're willing to accept high losses - missiles and drones make more sense as they don't have to deal with a squishy pilot restricting their maneuverability(thrust) and endurance(Fatigue (fighting and handling Gees is TIRING) life support, Fuel to return to the mothership/base if you're culture isn't a big fan of kamikaze tactics(Waste of training and experience in my opinion).

Effective range for Missile and Drone systems will be limited by light lag/Electronic Countermeasures/onboard targeting or AI and fuel.

I disapprove of the use of self-aware AI in missiles and drones - I don't like suicide tactics.
 
#2 not a lot of options here

System defense/assault
Convoy defense/raiding
Interdiction
Fleet Destruction
Scouting/Intel
Sabotage
Bombardment/Eradication

Scouting - best way to Scout - Steiner Scout Squad
and
(thank you Black pants legion for these short videos)
(As much as I like Mechs, they are TOTALLY REDICULOUS)
Nothing complicates your armor scheme like moving parts, never mind how tall mech are and how easily spotted things like that are.

ANYWAY

Scouting - you have 3 options - Recon in force(see the Steiner Scout Squad). the sneaky way - Stealth, or the Daring way - Red makes it go MOAR FASTA(good sensors/Comms/ECM and blasting through the target area on a trajectory the enemy cannot intercept you)
Or Combination thereof.

System Defense/Assault - Defense has the high orbital area Assault wants it.
Convoy Defense/Raiding - Protect/kill the squishies.
Interdiction - Stop the squishies from getting into orbit or into/out of system
Fleet Destruction - destroy the squishies toys
Sabotage - destroy what the squishies use to make their toys
Bombardment - Sabotage at a distance,
Eradication - Kill the Squishies at a distance... Thoroughly.
 
#3

The best you can build is the best you can build.

BUT your Best you can build small is not as good as the BEST you can build LARGE.
after all smaller machines don't have as good heat tolerance as bigger machines used for the same purpose.
Miniaturization always lags after current tech.
Easier to make it big than to make it small.
then take the things that work better when larger - Range Finders the farther apart the focusing crystals the more accurate the range finder, Telescopes larger reflective mirrors give larger resolution, Radar Arrays same for the above.

Sensors make a huge deal look at the battle of north cape or the battle of Samar
In the Battle fo the North Cape Scharnhorst losses targeting radar
making Sharnhorst's A and B Turrets much less accurate.
In the Batle of Samar, The japanesse don't have targetting radar except for Yamato who out massed the entire allied force in this battle - Japan lost mostly because the IJN thought the US escort carriers where fleet carriers and there for the Destroyers where Cruisers and so they used Armor piercing explosive shot.
Which detonates after x time after hitting Y density armor.
with destroyers that means the shells detonate after going through one side and out the other exploding in the water on the other side.
 
#3 Continued

building large mass projects is less constrained than at the bottom of a gravity well - on the surface of a planet/star/etc.
absolute mass restrictions is when you start changing the orbits of what you're building around and that's just sloppy.
You shouldn't build ships massing more than luna in a Earth-Luna Lagrange point.
That does bad things to Luna's orbit..

Yeah you can just tether as much material together until it's all connected in it's proper configuration.
 
Just an FYI, I believe the Geneva Convention protects Squishy toys. ;)

I agree missile/drone systems are currently the weapon of choice in most battle scenerios.

One of the problems with large ships is the cost vs vunerablity. For example aircraft carriers have tremendous power projection but make wonderful targets too. It's similar to an all your eggs in one basket issue. Much of what is in a Carrier Task force is mainly there to try and protect the carrier.

Fighters are cheap in comparison and can carry missles.

But fighters need a support structure. Fuel, maintenenace, supplies, etc. So they are tied to a base (or carrier) or a logistal umbilical cord of support ships.

I am not sure I can see a future where a major power won't be required to have the whole variety of weapon systems and support craft. Flexibility to tailor the forces to to mission and importantly to give you options. You can't predict what you will face entirely and single response to everything isn't feasible either (ie. Nukes). At least not in human terms.
 
In space Nukes are best used for bomb pumped lasers as the explosive force is carried by the particles from the explosive alone rather than forming a shockwave beyond the EM spectrum. Range is increased for the Gamma burst due to a lack of atmospheric shielding - but you still have the problem of it being lethal after a period of "walking dead" - people knowing they WILL die in ~2 weeks but still being mostly functional - They make GREAT shock troop - Moral isn't much of an issue.

@Tom "Fighters are cheap in comparison and can carry missiles" True but they can't carry as large of missiles or as large of quantity.

Counter Missile capabilities are in high demand everything from Point Defense Systems(PDS) like the Phalanx, Goalkeeper, Rheinmetall GDM-008 or AK630 to Counter-Missile Missiles.
GDM-008 is pretty cool because it's a point defense shotgun with a 200/minute ROF

For the record a Counter-Missile Missile is usually intended to take out cruise missiles and the like they can take out fighters as well.

in space warfare you shouldn't think of a Missile as something like a hellfire missile(108lb) but more like cruise missile or a torpedo(5400lbs for a long lance torpedo) fired in volleys.

Some of these missiles wont have warheads - instead will have ECM systems to confuse PDS and other sensor systems.

That already means that aircraft need to make nape of the earth/waves attack runs or saturate the defenses through weight of fire.
Imagine the Space battleship instead of spending most of it's tonnage on armor instead spends it on Point defense systems and spaced composite ablative armor(low mass-High Volume).

Point Defense systems carry out the same function as secondary batteries in WW2 (3-5th batteries in pre-dreadnoughts) Killing Torpedo Boats, Destroyers and other small craft.

Advancements in Point Defense will lead to missiles with either better stealth to penetrate defenses or missiles with stand off ranges - the missile only has to get X close to deliver it's payload.
Missiles with laser or mass driver warheads.
These sort of missiles are even more effective against fighters.
Giving warships a Projected punch against fighters

So a warship sees a wing of enemy fighters flying towards the warship.
The warship fires volleys of missiles - each missiles carries an anti armor shotgun designed to shoot down fighters and missiles.

Think driving down the highway and 3 drones fly up to you and fire one 10 gauge 000 shell each at your vehicle

Ask Bonnie and Clyde how that turns out.
 

New Threads

Top Bottom