Re: Fighter surviability...

Jerry Han wrote:

> However, the conditions that lead to the widespread use of the
> fighter seem to fail under futuristic environments.  For example, can
> fighters carry weapons heavy enough to damage capital ships?	Is
> fighter maneuverability an acceptable defence against all possible
> weaponry?  Does there exist a weapon that hits with a high enough
> probability that it can take fighters down with very little effort?
> Does a fighter have enough of a range and speed advantage over
> targets to make it practical?  And on and on.
>

Well fighters can carry nukes, that should be sufficient to put a dent
in something. And nuclear missles can be pretty lightweigt. There are
manpack portable Atomic Demolitions Munitions that weigh in at 60 lbs.

Los