RE: Fighters

A lot depends on how efficient small engines and weapons can be made. If
the
proportional power of small engines is less than or only equal to the
power
of the engines on the ships, the fighters would not be able to travel
faster
than the ships. This would make them useless. This is why you don't see
large ships launching smaller boats with 6" guns or machine guns on them
to
attack other ships.

To make a fighter useful, it must have the following
characteristics/abilities:
  1 - Fly faster than the ship that launches it.
  2 - Have an efficient enough engine that it has enough fuel to get to
the
objective and back while meeting provision 1.
  3 - Have an efficient enough weapon that it can cause appreciable
damage
without negating provisions 1 or 2.

The main reason to have fighters on a carrier or other ship are:
  1 - Extend the range of the ship/fleet. Today, a carrier and its
fighters
can cover more area than two or three other types of ships.
  2 - Cost. Because of the power of today's fighter launched weapons,
carriers are more powerful than an equivalent cost of other surface
ships.
  3 - Flexibility. Today, carriers can attack ships and land targets.
They
can also send recon patrols.

I am sure that I have missed some reasons for carriers in the present
day.
But the ideas remain the same.

<ramble mode>
In the Tuffleyverse, there seems to be somewhat of a paradox in the
regard
of engine efficiency. Fighters, while not able to match the top speed of
ships (which can reach unlimited speed) have very efficient engines that
allow for radical direction changes (180 degrees at full speed) and
dogfighting while being able to dish out, mass for mass, more damage
than
any other weapon (I can hear the numbers crunching even as I speak).
However, smaller ships do not have more efficient engines than larger
ships.
Perhaps, fighters use a different style of engine than larger ships
(considering the different style of movement) that just does not work on
a
larger scale.
</ramble mode>

---
Brian Bell
bkb@beol.net <mailto:bkb@beol.net>
http://members.xoom.com/rlyehable/
---

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[mailto:owner-gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU]On Behalf Of jeremy claridge
Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 1999 10:32
To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Subject: Fighters

> ***
> In truth, I don't believe space fighters will exist at
> all in the near future,
> ***
>
> Thanks, Tony! I'd meant to mention this, also. Never
> cared for them in SFB, though you'll have to pry the
> TFG Fed carrier model out of my cold, dead hands if
> you want it. ;->=

Wasn't a similar arguement made in our own history about the
usefulness of Aircraft in naval warfare.
As I recal most Naval experts couldn't see the point in aircraft.

Me I never rule anything out.
If the enemy have some I want some to :)

----------------------
jeremy claridge
jeremy.claridge@kcl.ac.uk