Warshield73 wrote:In the expanse, and other higher realism setting, you just aren't likely to see fighters of any kind as they are not big enough to carry...well any other than a point defense class weapon, they have no space for fuel, there is no limit to speed just acceleration and all ships from battleships to shuttles have the same limits, that of the human crews onboard. Also, torpedoes work just fine on their own so no need for fighters there.
I think fighters can be viable, even in a hard sci-fi setting:
1. Re-call ability. One reason we have bomber aircraft for delivery of nuclear warheads IS that we can abort and recall the craft. The only real way to do that with missile/torpedoes is self-detonation, and then you're most likely out the missile(s). They are also re-usable (which can make their higher cost vs missile attractive in the long run).
2. Fighters have evolved into multi-role platforms, something a shuttlecraft sized object could be tasked with at which point you might as well just call it a fighter
3. Fighters allow one to deploy for multi-vector attacks, sure they might not be as powerful as a fixed gun on a ship but they might also make up for it with numbers and force the enemy to be "honest" and not direct/roll to keep the most shield/armor directed toward their attacker
4. Fighters in a defensive role allow for way to reinforce a given areas' PDW. If you know a given class has fewer fixed PDWs from a given angle of attack (say the undercarriage) for whatever reason (damage, design, etc) then why wouldn't you try to target your missiles to come in on that angle of attack?. Now you could deploy Robots/PA (in setting) for this role, but interception at longer ranges is better than closer IMHO
5. You can deploy them as forward observer in certain environments that might hamper sensors (example the "classic" asteroid field trope, something like in Robotech Episode "Blind Game" where the SDF-1 is in the remains of Pamir)
6. Stealth is a technology that likely is easier/cheaper to achieve with a fighter than a capital ship (at least with some sensor types, but those sensor types might also be range restricted to in terms of resolution), while it could also be added to missiles (stealth cruise missiles are a thing)
7. Man-in-the-loop advantages. While AI might not have the same physical limitations as humans, the question does have to be considered if they can match a pilot/crew innate ability to innovate in novel situations. Examples: if an AI doesn't have data on say the Intruders (from PW), can it effectively engage them in the same way a human pilot could? What about performance that does not match up to established data because its been modified (example: Star Wars Uglies from Legends, or a new model with differing performance like Robotech's Alpha-H/I vs Z engines, or in its Macross OSM with the VF-1A/J/D having different engines than the VF-1S). While you could do this via remote, there is the possibility of jamming. What about the enemy fighters changing tactics that made the preset data less useful? etc
8. Deployed Fighters can capitalize on their "motherships" initial speed at time of launch, so if it was doing 10kps when the fighters launched those fighters start with 10kps and can build from that
Now available technology is going to be a major factor in the viability of a "fighter", but it is theoretically possible.
Warshield73 wrote:Again just not the case. Carriers on earth are the only ones that can carry jet fighters because they require a runway, catapults and all that other fun stuff but in PW a Warshield cruiser with its average frigate/destroyer escorts can field more fighters than modern US super carrier.
Actually it is possible for other class of vessels to carry and deploy jet fighters, it just requires jet fighters that are designed with VTOL capability, at which point you don't need a runway you could do it with basically helicopter landing pads which are present on various vessels (NOTE: these pads likely do need considerations that a helicopter doesn't). It just there aren't many viable VTOL fighter jets that reached production and deployment.
Warhsield73 wrote:Except they can't. Cruise Missiles fired at greater than 3 to 5 miles can be shot down so fighters typically have to get close to fire the missiles otherwise might as well have a destroyer launch them from a thousand miles out, same effect except most of them can produce a greater weight of fire.
Game mechanically speaking missiles can be shot down once within range of a given weapon system, it really doesn't matter at what range the missiles are fired per say, they can be shot down. Now there is a point where flight speeds and range reach a point where it is likely impossible to shoot down a missile and it will vary with missile.
Warshield73 wrote:Not sure if they can get any larger. It seems to be an upper limit of the current drive systems, as for everything else I can agree. If you are on are on a planet or in a space fleet that maybe tops out at cruisers or battlecruisers it can be terrifying in a way that a simple battleship can't be. But, as it is and with the way it is described as being spread out around the fleet it feels like it could be more effective.
I think its less the current drive systems as opposed to the favored drive system (CG). Really there isn't any reason a reaction drive system couldn't work for a large vessel it's just going to have the draw backs of being fuel/propellant hungry and likely slow which is likely why CG drives are favored.
Warshield73 wrote: Nekira Sudacne wrote: Sun Jun 15, 2025 12:34 am wrote:
(Transforming into a giant robot functionality optional)
Can it have a giant vacuum cleaner?
Who cares about its giant vacuum cleaner accessory, I want to know if it can punch/swat attacking ships out of commission!