Re: Fighter surviability...

I've followed this discussion on fighters with some interest.

Remember that with directed energy weapons (lasers or particle beams)
there
is a minimum range where hits are automatic. For example, at a range of
0.01
light second (3000 km), a manned fighter executing a radical 9G
direction
change moves only 0.9 meters from its predicted flight path (allowing
for
travel time for the fighter's last EMS signature to the ship and the
weapon's return fire travel time.) The directed energy weapon will hit
the
fighter (unless it's really small <grin>).

The laws of physics will limit how close starships and fighters can be
without allowing automatic hits from lightspeed weaponry.

I don't see how cinematic type (ie, Babylon 5) fighter combats can
happen.
The most probable use for fighters as I see it will be more similar to
the
game 2300 AD, with fighters as remote objects launching missiles with
detonation laser warheads from some distance away while the carrier
remains
even further out of range.

Kem
-----Original Message-----
From: Los <los@cris.com>
To: FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk <FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk>
Date: Friday, February 13, 1998 2:31 PM
Subject: 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
>
>