Stick to ship combat and no fighters.

[kreissig]

No they lost because they were to stupid to use their weapons right!

And its not. Cavalry and Fighter have not smiliarity. Soley because unlike knifes, Horses are animals. They have to be trained for war.
A Spacecraft on the other paw, not unlike a knife, is build for battle.
Also I used that anaolgy, because some people here think, they KNOW without ANY DOUBT that Space Fighters are useless.

Totally false. The US lost in those cases you mentioned, not because the US military command does not know how to employ its weaponry, rather....it was the interference of politicians that "enabled" defeat. Total war as Clausewitz envisioned is not probable in the current political climate in most cases. Certainly not for democracies, due to the nature of the population's proclivities.

 

[kreissig]

Having followed the knife-debate from a lurking stance it's now time to pounce because it does hold some merit as a comparison.
Knifes are pretty useless compared to a howitzer or nukes in terms of destruction but still most infantrymen with experience carry a combat blade since the tend to be used up close and personal from time to time even outside of special forces.
When you end up in an enemy trench or indoor with mixed hostiles and friendlies the knife is your best friend, drawn and used in one hand when wrestling with an opponent it fills a purpose that few other weapons can match in price, weight and durability and even more so for its double use in utility tasks.
So as an analogy to fighters in space it's not completely silly although the rest of the discussion seems to have been carried away as usual.

Just because something small feels quaint in comparison with something bigger doesn't mean it has no purpose. Just as the brass admirals of the early 20th century scoffed at the idea that a biplane could do ANYTHING to the lumbering behemoth Dreadnoughts of the age before being instantly vaporized by it's various guns, or the generals of later era air-forces scoffed at the idea of autocannons in the missile era there's a pretty big chance that "assuming" stuff about future developments and scoffing at the idea is folly.

The analogy of space fighters to fighter aircraft is very accurate. Just as comparing spaceships is to ships. Broadening the analogies out is possible, but becomes more and more philosophical in nature. As it does, it inversely becomes less and less a tactical comparison.

 

[Praetori]

The analogy of space fighters to fighter aircraft is very accurate. Just as comparing spaceships is to ships. Broadening the analogies out is possible, but becomes more and more philosophical in nature. As it does, it inversely becomes less and less a tactical comparison.

Indeed and making tactical comparisons between technologies that doesn't even exist makes for a nerd fest of headshaking proportions (but we all seem to enjoy it).

 

[Praetori]

Recall that my idea was a missile with its own submunitions (the semi-smart missiles in your case). Think "kamikaze AI-piloted fighter"

Yes but it's even better (cheaper) if that munitions carrier wasn't a dispensable one trick pony. The end question is weather AI and on-board decisionmaking and sensors is a technological, economical, safe and viable solution compared to flesh-command. Small craft (fighter style), kamikaze or reusable, piloted by biological pilots or metal men is a matter of taste (and for machine races even a non issue).

 

[Teleros]

Yes but it's even better (cheaper) if that munitions carrier wasn't a dispensable one trick pony.

Why is it necessarily cheaper? Again, you're lacking the expensive pilot, the life support system, and can cut down on lots of fuel and/or propellant. Could likely cut down on volume per fighter in your carrier too, meaning more fighters or lighter / faster / etc carriers. I suppose you could always pick up the surviving kamikaze fighters/missiles after a battle too, though if you don't... eh, small loss, and no letters to write home to grieving families. Think about the US and its drones in the Middle East - there's a similar dynamic going on there.

The issue with cost really comes down to your economic / industrial base + cost of training each pilot. The USAF spends about $3M to train a pilot for a $30M F-15 Eagle (and I don't think that cost-per-pilot will drop when you're flying around in space, given how much more expensive astronaut training is), but presumably you only need to design the AI for your kamikaze fighter once, then just copy/paste it into each missile hard drive. There's also an opportunity cost to having a pilot - it means that person can't be used for other space navy duties.

Further, considering how well automated our factories can be ATM, and how that's likely to improve (3D printing, better robotics, etc etc)... well, I'm sure you can imagine a scenario whereby the cost of building a fighter or whatever is extremely low, such that the cost per fighter is determined more by the cost of its pilot than anything else. So worst case with an AI-controlled kamikaze missile, you don't bother to pick them up after combat and write off the few millions of dollars it cost to build each of them (or even send the self-destruct codes to them). Worst case with a piloted fighter, you have to write to said pilot's widow and children that he was last seen heading off into deep space with an empty tank of gas and no chance of being rescued, to either self-destruct his fighter, swallow his cyanide pill of die from lack of oxygen (oh, and all the money invested in him & his fighter is gone too).

To be sure, it's unlikely that all your fighter pilots are going to end their days like that (!), but it does graphically illustrate how much more expendable the kamikaze AI version is.

The end question is weather AI and on-board decisionmaking and sensors is a technological, economical, safe and viable solution compared to flesh-command.

Properly speaking, the end question is whether said AI is viable enough compared to a flesh-and-blood pilot. Suppose for the sake of argument that a kamikaze missile is only 75% as effective as the average piloted fighter... but you can fit 50% more of them in a carrier (smaller due to not needing to fit a human inside, less massive due to no life support, etc)... at least when it comes to fleet actions, you're going to want your missiles.

Of course I'm cherry-picking here, but there are good, sound reasons for assuming that AI fighters/missiles will be superior in lots of ways in combat. Computers are easier to protect against high acceleration than humans (see hypersonic missiles etc for an example of this), tend to react a lot faster, don't need all the life support kit a human does, and don't need rescuing or picking up etc.

Modern efforts with UAVs and drones are stymied by the computers not being able to form judgements about targets as well as humans (not that we're foolproof in this regard)... but once they get good enough, we're going to see some very interesting situations when it comes to warfare. I mean, the USA losing a fighter over Iran would be a big deal... the USA losing a drone over Iran is merely embarrassing.

 

[Praetori]

Why is it necessarily cheaper? Again, you're lacking the expensive pilot, the life support system, and can cut down on lots of fuel and/or propellant.

You're missing the point.
It's a twofold question. If fighters are viable is a separate question compared to crewed vehicles.

For example today you have smart rounds like the artillery shells such as copperhead or excalibur but compared to dumb shells they are immensely expensive. The dumb shells will still kill your enemies but you need to fire more of then and you need human spotters correcting the fire. Now both the western powers and third world countries can easily have efficient artillery with human spotters while the added cost of smart rounds makes them viable only for the richest nations and only for use in special cases.

The RPG-7 is a cheap and reliable weapon requiring a human operator to get fairly close to the target and while it's inferior to a Javelin Missile it's still a viable weapon despite the lack of guidance, sensors or range because of the low cost and ease of operation.

With unlimited funds and production capacity then yes a smart missile is better than a fighter since you can build as many of them as you need. If however your funds or production capacity is limited then having dumber weapons on smart platforms (human or ai controlled) might be a good idea.

 

[Teleros]

It's a twofold question. If fighters are viable is a separate question compared to crewed vehicles.

Hmm. TBH I'm not convinced they are separate questions when it comes to space fighters. I think crewed vehicles are fine in many (if not most) roles - but if nothing else the size of fighters tends to work against them as crewed vehicles.

For example today you have smart rounds like the artillery shells such as copperhead or excalibur but compared to dumb shells they are immensely expensive. The dumb shells will still kill your enemies but you need to fire more of then and you need human spotters correcting the fire. Now both the western powers and third world countries can easily have efficient artillery with human spotters while the added cost of smart rounds makes them viable only for the richest nations and only for use in special cases.

In the case of space combat at least, dumb weapons are not going to be terribly viable except for energy weapons, because of the range and targeting issues present.

Railguns for example would be great as missile launchers, and I suppose might be of use if your laser tech is such that point defence lasers aren't viable and "flak" guns are better, but they're a poor choice as a main weapon except at "knife fighting" ranges (and why/how are you in knife fighting range so often that it's sensible to equip yourself for it?!).

The RPG-7 is a cheap and reliable weapon requiring a human operator to get fairly close to the target and while it's inferior to a Javelin Missile it's still a viable weapon despite the lack of guidance, sensors or range because of the low cost and ease of operation.

Underlining the important bit. An RPG-7 is a viable weapon because it's dirt cheap, really simple, and easily produced in large quantities... not to mention typically employed by nations and groups more willing to tolerate casualties on their side.

How does "dirt cheap" and "really simple" apply to an X-wing though? The USAF spends millions on training its pilots, and NASA spends millions more on each astronaut. Even if we assume NASA is an extreme outlier, the situation is still going to be like the USAF rather than the US Army, because you're going to need the right kind of person to pilot a fighter in space. It's a true 3D environment and manoeuvring in space is nothing like what we're used to on Earth or in the sky.

With unlimited funds and production capacity then yes a smart missile is better than a fighter since you can build as many of them as you need. If however your funds or production capacity is limited then having dumber weapons on smart platforms (human or ai controlled) might be a good idea.

This is what I'm actually arguing for, at least in the case of the AI controlled version . An AI controlled fighter with the same weapons as a crewed one will also be:

1. More manoeuvrable due to higher tolerance for g-forces & far superior reaction times.
2. Lighter or more heavily armoured or more heavily armed or carrying more propellant for manoeuvring, due to not needing any mass / volume for life support, or (perhaps) less fuel / propellant for returning to its mothership.
3. Potentially with a smaller profile due to not needing to fit a human-compatible cockpit into it.
4. Considerably more expendable due to not having a highly trained, hard-to-replace person aboard.

So fly into combat, unload all your ordnance like a human pilot would, then either head back for home if you can, or just ram some unlucky sod on the other side.

 

[dragoon9105]

Wouldn't VR control allow you to have humans controlling the Ships while not risking themselves, and wasting space on Life support and escape systems.

Saves having to spend money on expensive AI also, Now if the pilot is shot down, the computer gives him control of another drone.

AI missiles are boring at the end of the day. For Rule of Cool and Narrative purposes you need to have a human element.

 

[Praetori]

In the case of space combat at least, dumb weapons are not going to be terribly viable except for energy weapons, because of the range and targeting issues present.

A Maverick isn't "dumb" unless you compare it to a JSOW or Tomahawk. It's cheaper but requires a pilot to get within visual and lock it onto target though.

ONLY in the western world is drone combat mainly driven by a wish to not risk pilots, and it's all about politics.
Comparing a hypothetical space empire of billions to the US is a bit hasty as you could just as well say China or North Korea (in regard to human risk vs combat efficiency).

If you have classic Starship Troopers back story or even worse 40k then the life of a pilot is worth as much as the paint on the aircraft he/she is flying and while it's far from what today's western standards the Evil Empire or insectoid race might have a completely different value-scale in regard to their warriors than a 21st century Democracy.

 

[kreissig]

A Maverick isn't "dumb" unless you compare it to a JSOW or Tomahawk. It's cheaper but requires a pilot to get within visual and lock it onto target though.

ONLY in the western world is drone combat mainly driven by a wish to not risk pilots, and it's all about politics.
Comparing a hypothetical space empire of billions to the US is a bit hasty as you could just as well say China or North Korea (in regard to human risk vs combat efficiency).

If you have classic Starship Troopers back story or even worse 40k then the life of a pilot is worth as much as the paint on the aircraft he/she is flying and while it's far from what today's western standards the Evil Empire or insectoid race might have a completely different value-scale in regard to their warriors than a 21st century Democracy.

Very true. Democracies have been loathe to loose large sums of human life (of their own) for any conflict. ie....drones, Superior Firepower Doctrine (Such as it was employed in WWII), ICBM's as deterrent...ect. All those things spring from an Ethos, and the implementation of them in the tactical and strategic environment is dependent on their suitability to maintain it.

 

[Teleros]

Wouldn't VR control allow you to have humans controlling the Ships while not risking themselves, and wasting space on Life support and escape systems.

That depends on range, communication speed, and jamming. If you're using lightspeed communications, then there's going to be serious issues (it takes light 8 minutes to get to Earth from the Sun for example), so ideally you'd want FTL communications. These can presumably be jammed however. Still, assuming sufficiently good FTL comms and the like, I don't see why you couldn't use this at least some of the time. I'd be wary about doing it near an enemy planet though, because they'd likely have gigantic FTL comm relays they could use for jamming ("sorry folks, space-internet is down while we jam Emperor Zorg's remote-controlled fighters...").

AI missiles are boring at the end of the day. For Rule of Cool and Narrative purposes you need to have a human element.

Indeed. My point is that you should be sure to have logical, internally consistent reasons for having people around. On the battleship it's fine - you want actual people making the decisions because you don't trust your machines (however good they are), or similar. On the fighter it's harder for the reasons I've been banging on (and on and on ) about, at least if you intend to use fighters in fleet actions.

A Maverick isn't "dumb" unless you compare it to a JSOW or Tomahawk. It's cheaper but requires a pilot to get within visual and lock it onto target though.

Whoever said anything about Maverick? You were comparing smart warheads to "dumb shells". I was just pointing out that weapons with the intelligence of "dumb shells" won't be viable in space combat, except for energy weapons because they're so fast.

ONLY in the western world is drone combat mainly driven by a wish to not risk pilots, and it's all about politics.
Comparing a hypothetical space empire of billions to the US is a bit hasty as you could just as well say China or North Korea (in regard to human risk vs combat efficiency).

Culturally sure, but you need a certain level of technological know-how to get your spaceships working in the first place, and the way real technological progress works makes it unlikely you'll have super-duper materials tech, factories, lasers and such... but 1950s computers. Sure I exaggerate a little, but the point is that whilst it's fine to have a culture that's okay with losing lots of people, said culture is also very likely to have a lot of the tech that makes more efficient means of combat possible.

If you have classic Starship Troopers back story

The classic Starship Troopers story has them place quite a high value on the Mobile Infantry, because each individual has a ton of stuff up to and including nuclear weapons they can use. The movie version butchered this (and Heinlein's politics of the book).

40k then the life of a pilot is worth as much as the paint on the aircraft he/she is flying

I think 40K treats its pilots better than that, because they're rather specialised. I can't recall the guys in Double Eagle being treated like the Imperial Navy's whip-driven gun crews or the poor sods in the Imperial Guard from Krieg. Specialists in the Imperium generally get to avoid being used to make the enemy waste their ammunition after all .

the Evil Empire or insectoid race might have a completely different value-scale in regard to their warriors than a 21st century Democracy.

True, but again it feels somewhat contrived, no? Now sure, the Nazis were hardly paragons of military efficiency (see all their horrendously expensive wonder-weapons that never worked, or at least not well enough), but even then it's worth noting that given the choice between fighting the RAF in the air post-Battle of Britain and lobbing missiles at us, they chose the latter rather than waste pilots.

As for insectoid races and the like... possibly. Just because a race is indifferent to casualties (well, indifferent below the level of genocide or w/e ) doesn't mean they won't want to maximise their efficiency.

Very true. Democracies have been loathe to loose large sums of human life (of their own) for any conflict.

That depends on when the democracy in question existed. This is certainly true since WW1, but in earlier conflicts I'm not sure you can say the same. Britain in the Napoleonic Wars lost tens of thousands, ditto America in her Civil War, the Germans in the Franco-Prussian War... today we're much less willing to tolerate losses, but that's not always been true and won't necessarily always be true in the future either.

ICBM's as deterrent...ect.

This had more to do with the fact that there was no way in hell that the West could survive a conventional war with the USSR without becoming as militarised as its enemy (which kind of defeats the purpose). The US, British, French and other NATO troops in West Germany were essentially a flesh-and-blood tripwire: if the Soviets attacked & overran them, well it was clearly the opening stages of WW3 so time to make Moscow glow in the dark.

I believe a similar situation exists today with the US Navy's carrier groups: sinking one of those is a sign you're really serious about a war with the USA, including the likelihood of a nuclear exchange.

 

[kreissig]

↑
Very true. Democracies have been loathe to loose large sums of human life (of their own) for any conflict.


That depends on when the democracy in question existed. This is certainly true since WW1, but in earlier conflicts I'm not sure you can say the same. Britain in the Napoleonic Wars lost tens of thousands, ditto America in her Civil War, the Germans in the Franco-Prussian War... today we're much less willing to tolerate losses, but that's not always been true and won't necessarily always be true in the future either.

1. You must, however, in those earlier instances compare the death toll by non-democracies.
2. I would not consider Prussia a democracy. Considering statements like. "You are counties with armies, and we are an army with a country" - and the fact that one had to be an Aristocrat to lead.


↑
ICBM's as deterrent...ect.


This had more to do with the fact that there was no way in hell that the West could survive a conventional war with the USSR without becoming as militarised as its enemy (which kind of defeats the purpose). The US, British, French and other NATO troops in West Germany were essentially a flesh-and-blood tripwire: if the Soviets attacked & overran them, well it was clearly the opening stages of WW3 so time to make Moscow glow in the dark.

I believe a similar situation exists today with the US Navy's carrier groups: sinking one of those is a sign you're really serious about a war with the USA, including the likelihood of a nuclear exchange.

The US was/is most certainly "as militarised" as any nation on the planet. In fact, more so. The two largest industries in California are Hollywood and military weapons production. The real trick is, is that the Military Industrial Complex is so diversified as to be invisible to the casual observer. You mentioned Carriers, their existence alone is proof of militarization. What other nation has even one Carrier on par with the U.S.'s dozens?

 

[Praetori]

Whoever said anything about Maverick? You were comparing smart warheads to "dumb shells". I was just pointing out that weapons with the intelligence of "dumb shells" won't be viable in space combat, except for energy weapons because they're so fast.

As an analogy to smart platforms yes, and it's a sliding scale from cruise missiles (all automation) down to small arms rounds (completely free of computers but with a human operator).

 

[FelixG]

Totally false. The US lost in those cases you mentioned, not because the US military command does not know how to employ its weaponry, rather....it was the interference of politicians that "enabled" defeat..

I don't know why someone disagreed with you. The Military knew how to use their toys, but they were prevented by doing what needed to be done to win by political pressures.

 

[Praetori]

I think 40K treats its pilots better than that, because they're rather specialised. I can't recall the guys in Double Eagle being treated like the Imperial Navy's whip-driven gun crews or the poor sods in the Imperial Guard from Krieg. Specialists in the Imperium generally get to avoid being used to make the enemy waste their ammunition after all .

Specialized unit and they still put them in harms way throughout the campaign, and the losses are horrific in other units (good books though). Regarding the Imperium they clearly have technology at their hands that would not endanger pilots in such a way but it's expensive and resource demanding while flesh is cheap in comparison. In the end it's sci-fi and the fiction (story) is more important than the reasonability of the technological situation. Plausibility in sci-fi is largely dependent on the canon of the setting rather than modern day science (and in any case we don't even have the faintest idea on the feasibility of artificial gravity, AI, coherent beam-weapons, FTL or much of the other stuff making most sci-fi universes possible to begin with).

The ultimate AI is of course better than a human in the cockpit (especially if it's a one-way trip) but it can be argued that it's not cost effective (depending on the cost of AI, sensors and flight-tech compared to a fighter) which is my point.
If a reusable launching platform (such as a fighter) with advanced sensors, navigation and fire-control lets you get away with cheaper ("not AI smart" or with astronomically powerful sensors) missiles as payload it might be favourable compared to having long-range AI-smart missiles packed with everything you need (advanced sensors, guidance, comms etc).
That's NOT saying fighters trying to get up close to larger ships wouldn't be mincemeat, it's wholly in the area of standoff weaponry (capital ship shield dodging shenanigans ala star-wars aside).

 

[ranbir]

I'm more of a Trek person with big ships but whenever I get options to do carriers-fighters/bombers I do generally, because they're fun.

 

[FelixG]

Another option for fighters (bombers really) over missiles: If the enemy point defense is good enough, they will pick off a large number of missiles, however, you could wrap a torpedo in black body material, and have it have no emissions other than a very, very tiny amount of power (if that) and they are instead contact weapons, a fighter(bomber) could carry these black body weapons close enough that they cant easily be evaded by larger ships and drop them at a fairly high speed and return to get more. These torpedoes being black body and radar/lidar absorbent, and having no emissions of their own due to a lack of engines would be hell on point defense to intercept.

The fighters and bombers could be AI piloted, sure, but a small craft delivery system would be ideal for launching these weapons at the enemy, rather than disposable one way weapons.

 

[Latheloi]

Eh, I think carrier and extra-small craft combat should be included just because it provides an additional option when thinking about ship design - whether to have a weapon which is adaptaptive once fired plus (presumably at least) requires different countermeasures to your other weapons, but which leaves a weapon slot useless once you do so is an interesting strategic choice.

Plus, you would obviously want the capability for launching atmospheric craft for aerial supremacy when invading another planet (or at the very least, to get troops and materiel landed). It seems rather daft to not also be use that capacity in ship to ship encounters.

 

[ajac]

Honestly whenever fighters are forced into space 4x games they are just an unclear badly balanced mess more like suicide darts than a actual carrier warfare system.Keep the combat to WW1 battleship style tactics.

aka I suck at 4x games. Always a way to counter things in games.Build ships with more point defense or fighters for CAP.

 

[Teleros]

Specialized unit and they still put them in harms way throughout the campaign, and the losses are horrific in other units (good books though).

Well of course they put them in harm's way - they're soldiers (well, airmen, but w/e). Their job is to be in harm's way . The point though is that they're not being thrown away as expendable mooks like you get with rather too many Imperial Guard regiments.

Regarding the Imperium they clearly have technology at their hands that would not endanger pilots in such a way but it's expensive and resource demanding

I'm not sure it's a question of resources so much as the Imperium's feudal setup and internal issues (and the fear of out of control or corrupted AIs). Even if (for sake of argument) Mars can manufacture the equipment necessary to automate the Imperial Navy's Lightning fighters or w/e, you still need to (a) persuade the Adeptus Mechanicus to do so, and (b) get them out there into a galaxy where the means of FTL travel is... not reliable, to put it mildly . Frankly I suspect (a) is the real problem here - the AdMech can build good AIs, but it tends to stick them into titans, where they merge with the titan pilot's mind. Robots in 40K tend to go bad far too regularly to be a safe investment.

In the end it's sci-fi and the fiction (story) is more important than the reasonability of the technological situation. Plausibility in sci-fi is largely dependent on the canon of the setting rather than modern day science

Yes and no. I mean... yes I like and enjoy Star Wars, but it would have been better had George Lucas given us a reason for piloted fighters rather than "rule of cool". The best sci-fi IMHO is internally self-consistent, and considers fully (or as fully as possible) what impact the sci-fi aspects would have.

and in any case we don't even have the faintest idea on the feasibility of artificial gravity, AI, coherent beam-weapons, FTL or much of the other stuff making most sci-fi universes possible to begin with

Artificial gravity and FTL I'll grant you, but the physics of particle beams and lasers is pretty well understood, at least as far as generating them goes. The real problem we have ATM is simply scaling them up. AI is in principle entirely possible, because we know intelligence is possible (hi there ), and barring the existence of souls or something, what science can analyse, science can replicate.

The ultimate AI is of course better than a human in the cockpit (especially if it's a one-way trip) but it can be argued that it's not cost effective (depending on the cost of AI, sensors and flight-tech compared to a fighter) which is my point.

Most of those factors are irrelevant in the comparison: the sensors & flight-tech will need to be identical or nearly so for human pilots (using the mark 1 eyeball in space... eep), so the real cost difference is the cost of developing the AI (and I suppose periodically patching it), versus the cost of training a generation or two of pilots etc.

Another option for fighters (bombers really) over missiles: If the enemy point defense is good enough, they will pick off a large number of missiles, however, you could wrap a torpedo in black body material, and have it have no emissions other than a very, very tiny amount of power (if that) and they are instead contact weapons, a fighter(bomber) could carry these black body weapons close enough that they cant easily be evaded by larger ships and drop them at a fairly high speed and return to get more. These torpedoes being black body and radar/lidar absorbent, and having no emissions of their own due to a lack of engines would be hell on point defense to intercept.

Three points that spring to mind. First, if the point defence is that good, then why would a fighter be able to get close enough to launch its attack? It must get close in your example because your stealth torpedo will be unguided (you need engines to change direction in space, and that means power, which means waste heat and/or other emissions, which means it's no longer a stealth weapon).

Second, those missiles must be very effective to justify the cost of a project to develop them and put them to use, as opposed to a project to strip out the missile launch tubes and replace them with more reactors and lasers or w/e . If the defence against one weapon type is that good, why stick with that weapon type?

Third, contact weapons are... iffy. They absolutely can be very effective, but the obviously problem is hitting a tiny target in the vastness of space (and yes, a multi-kilometre vessel is tiny in these circumstances ). Thus it depends on the specifics of the combat environment: it may be better to use shaped nuclear weapons and bomb-pumped x-ray lasers, for example - these can have a stand-off range measured in thousands of kilometres (see the Honor Harrington books). Omni-directional nuclear warheads will only ever work in very close range though, due to the inverse square rule.