Re: Fighters

At 11:15 AM +0200 5/14/02, KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de wrote:
>Roger Burton West schrieb:
>
>>  I continue to maintain that space-fighters are going to
>>  be _nothing_ like atmosphere-fighters, for the simple reason that
>>  there isn't the difference in media - an F-14 is going to be going
at
>
>>  least ten times as fast as a carrier, because it's in air rather
than
>in
>>  water. Therefore speed of strike isn't the reason that
space-fighters
>
>>  exist.
>
>A better analogy than spaceships as carrier/battleships vs. airplanes
>might be that of the spaceship as a heavy bomber and a FT fighter as,
>well, a fighter. Speed differential of no more than a factor of 3, but
>a significant difference in maneuvrability.

I'm still stuck on the ship/aircraft meme. It fits due to the role 
rather than looking at the speed differentials. Ships have a far 
longer period of time between resupply and can make repairs while 
under way. Aircraft cannot. There is a reason the great airships of 
the first part of this century were called air-Ships and not craft. 
They were in fact ships. Their role was as ships.

Their final evolution in the form of the two American Airship 
carriers with their 3 and then 5 sparrow hawk fighters could have 
made a huge difference in WWII when radar was still being worked out. 
Their ability to scout over hundreds of miles (given the fact that 
airship could travel at 60-70 knots) in short periods of time would