Prev: Re: Fighter surviability... Next: Re: Paul's Catalogue page..

Re: Fighter surviability...

From: Jerry 'Ghoti' Han <jhan@i...>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 16:38:10 -0500
Subject: Re: Fighter surviability...

Ooo, more comments!  (8-)

Los wrote:
> 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.

But then you have to mount the thing on a missile.  And if stand-off
is your key requirement (which the pilots will thank you for (8-) ),
you need to put a large enough atomic warhead on a missile that 
has both the range to reach the target, and the defences (whether 
through speed, maneuverability, stealth, what have you) to avoid 
anti-missile fire.

> I think the key thing would probably be that the fighter needs to
> the enemy tracking and detection system, not try to dodge the laser.
> the case of a laser, a lock on is a hit I guess.

When close enough, yes.  Here, however, the question is, can you 
make a fighter stealthy enough or with strong enough ECM to outpower
the equipment aboard a starship?

For a moment, let's switch from general to specific, just to clarify
some things.  

Case 1) Starship is equipped with laser clusters, 300km range, as 
point defence weapons.	(Yes, the range seems really puny, but there's
a point to that.)  At max range, 1 degree of translation in the turret
comes out to a deflection of 5.2km.  Hmmm.  It seems that its possible
to survive at that range, depending on the fine control of the 

I need to think about this some more, and do some more math.  I'll
get back to you all.  (8-)


 *** Jerry Han - - ***
       "And we will raise our hands, and we will touch the sky; 
	      Together we will dance in robes of gold; 
    And we will leave the world remembering when we were kings..."
      When We Were Kings - Brian McKnight/Diana King - TBFTGOGGI

Prev: Re: Fighter surviability... Next: Re: Paul's Catalogue page..