On space combat and the fighter/carrier model.

From Star Wars to Battlestar Galactica, and in many a video game, one- or two-person fighters have been in lots of pitched dogfights in space while capital ships slug it out in the background. What I want to discuss is, how feasable is this model?

With planetbound navies, there is a fundamental difference between ships and aircraft. Ships have to contend with dense water which greatly limits their maneuverability and top speed, and be able to withstand rough seas. Aircraft, because they travel through a much less dense medium, are capable of far greater speeds, giving rise to the mode of combat that has been dominant since WWII - carriers launch fighters and light bombers to engage enemy ships far beyond the range of the ship’s guns.

Once you move the battle to space however, you no longer have one medium for ships and another for aircraft. You just have hard vacuum. Inertia is still a factor in making larger spaceships less agile than smaller ones, but the difference is less. There are new design possibilities open in space as well. Since you don’t have to worry about adding so much armor to your ship that it sinks, you are only limited by how big a powerplant you can cram into the hull. Or if you allow energy shields, you can similarly go nuts with the shield emmiters. It seems to me that it would be hard to outfit a space fighter with enough weaponry and protection to be worthwhile. And if the pilot should have to eject, rescue would be much more difficult than on a planet.

I think that capital ships would be the only feasible way to go, even allowing exotic technologies like shields and beam weapons and such. What do you think?

Well, fighters actually make sense in cases where the writers come up with reasons why they work. Mass dependent drives that allow tiny ships greater speed and agility, for example.

Realistically, the closest you are likely to come to the carrier/fighter model in the real world would be a carrier/drone ship. Drones, after all, are expendable; it’s a different reason than why we use fighters, but a similar result. The only question would be if it just makes more sense to use missles, instead of drones.

What Der Trihs said, mostly.

Fighters/drones/missiles allow you to engage the enemy at a distance with less regard for self-preservation that you might have for the capital ship. Adding heavy armour to the capital ship decreases both the mobility and top speed (per unit fuel) of the capital ship.

If you have a compact magical self-recharging fuel source, fast, highly mobile drones with powerful energy weapons might be worthwhile; otherwise, probably missiles.

It should also be noted that ship-to-ship combat will take place at very long distance. If you’re looking out the window of one ship, you may not even be able to see the other ship with your naked eye.

At distances that great, guided missles that can adjust for unexpected changes in the target’s course would be the ideal weapon.

I don’t know how realistic it is, but I’ve always liked the way space combat was handled by the old Battlefleet Gothic wargame: Ships of the line could hit enemies with vollies from their main guns, but your opponent’s shields get in the way. You could launch bombers or torpedos that bypass shields, but fighters can intercept them (the main gun armament was too fast to intercept). Capitals were limited in how quickly they could turn, the bigger they were the easier it was to slip behind them.

Some fleets specialised in one or the other, so you’d have gun fleets closing in to bring their main weapons to bear, while ordinance fleets kept their distance and launched torps/bombs. It’s much more complex than that of course.

:dubious:

Have you seen Star Wars???

Search for threads I’ve posted in about Star Wars if you want to witness my geek credentials. My point is that Star Wars is hardly a realistic, or even especially self-consistent, treatise on the possibilities of space combat. That said, I like flying A-Wings the best, although they could do with a little more firepower.

I think missiles are pretty much a given. Drones are more feasible than manned fighters, but they probably would require a power source with high energy density to be worth the cost.

I agree that missiles would be the way to go. We’re even moving to an unmanned aircraft model today.

I’m not sure even missiles will work, though, unless you can produce hundreds of them. Any sort of decent computer operated anti-fighter weaponry on a capital ship, and there could be hundreds, could take out a fighter in one shot. Star Wars and the like are using the WW II model of a manually operated weapon that could hit enemy aircraft only by luck or by pumping the environment with lots of metal. A capital ship will always win the beam versus shield fight. No pilot could fly a random enough course to evade computer driven weapons and still do anything useful in the way of an attack.

I think the Star Trek model is probably closest to reality myself.

Warning: Geeky discussion of space battle in different universes follows:

Well, in Star Wars, we see lots of crew-served weapons, even on the largest and most sophisticated warships. When we do see capital ships fighting, it’s usually at very close range, using pulse energy weapons. Fighters are usually of limited consequence to the larger warships, though they can act effectively in support of their own capital ships (for example, in Return of the Jedi two Rebel starfighters destroy an important looking structure (possibly a sheild generator, possibly just a water tower) on the Super Star Destroyer while at least one (and presumably more than one) Rebel starcruiser attacked it. Fighters can also be used for reconnisance and projection of force, allowing a single warship to reach out and make it’s presence felt over a wide area, sometimes with the homeship being lightyears away in another starsystem. We never see a dedicated starfighter carrier, presumably because hyperdrive allows for the possibility of any ship suddenly finding another ship at close range with limited warning. The closest we’ve seen on screen are the Venator Star Cruisers from the Clone Wars and Episode III, which contained hundreds of fighters in a large series of hanger bays in the foward half of the ship. The aft portion of the ship contained several turrets, each mounting multiple crew-served energy cannons (presumably Turbolasers, possibly a larger weapon discarded in later designs).

In Star Trek, close to intermediate range capital ship combat is the rule of the day, with each major fleet fielding it’s own large capital ships and multiple smaller warships. We have seen relatively small Starfleet fighters (themselves the size of Starfleet Runabouts, and consisting mostly of engines and weapons, with a small crew space in the front), launching group attacks against smaller enemy warships, using a miniturized form of photon torpedos. These were used primarily to harass the enemy ships, and appeared to have limited effectiveness otherwise. Ships might use torpedos while at longer ranges, but usually close to point blank range to engage with beam or pulse weapons. A number of tactics (including the use of cloaking devices or “The Picard Maneuver”) have been devised to allow a ship to get close enough to bring it’s energy weapons into play.

Most fleets appear to have a few large battlecruisers (Vorcha or Galaxy) a number of intermediary cruisers (K’Tinga or Excelsior, and a number of smaller, faster, disposable frigate type ships (Bird of Prey or Miranda). Each fleet seems to have a different distribution of forces, with the Klingons favoring small disposable ships, Starfleet mid-range cruiser type ships, and the Romulans obviously favoring large, powerful battleships (curiously enough, the Romulans seem to totally lack smaller warships). Transporters are also used in combat to beam boarding parties onto an enemy ship, sometimes to sieze or sabotage the ship, othertimes in order to kidnap/rescue individual personel or equipment onboard. Transporting is almost impossible if the sheilds are up.

In BattleStar Galactica (at least, from the limited amount of it that I have seen), the capital ship carries various types of heavy weaponry, but relies on it’s onboard fighter compliment for reconnisance, defense, and force projection. Depending on the version of the show you are watching, small fighters are capable of various degrees of damage to enemy ships (in the original version, Colonial battlestars were vulnerable to attacks to their exposed hangerbays, while Cylon Basestars could find their external weaponry picked off by the agile Colonial Vipers, in the new version, Cylon raiders are capable of deploying nuclear missiles, which can cause significant damage to a BattleStar if not intercepted). Both versions featured Battlestars having to retreat while their fighter compliment fended off attack. In the original version, Vipers could be (and sometimes were) left behind by their motherships as the BattleStars were apparantly capable of outrunning their own fighter compliment (though they burned fuel at a prodigious rate if they did so). In the new version, Viper pilots often find themselves racing to land on the Galactica at the last moment before she can FTL jump out of the area. When the Vipers find themselves in this kind of situation, they usually find themselves under enemy fire even while trying to land. This sort of situation generally wouldn’t happen in a current-day navy lacking in FTL drives.

In the Wing Commander universe, capital ships are designed to fight other capital ships, but also find themselves having to defend against bombers, which carry torpedoes (often with nuclear or antimatter warheads) specially designed to phase through the capital ships’ heavy sheilds to strike the ship directly. In order to defend against bombers, fighters have to be deployed. Heavy fighters are capable both of dealing with enemy fighters and smaller ships, light fighters are better suited towards reconnisance, medium fighters are a jack-of-all trades, either performing their duties adequately or poorly (but rarely ever performing them remarkably well). While cruisers and destroyers can launch and recover fighters, larger dedicated carriers are usually set aside for this task. Where it is not possible to purpose-build a carrier, smaller ships are often modified for the purpose (the Union Of Border Worlds fields a type of carrier constructed by attaching a hanger bay between two destroyer hulls) A carrier equipped with substantial heavy capital-ship weaponry (often accompanied by some sort of BFG) is referred to as a Dreadnought While the Kilrathi used Dreadnoughts throughout the last half of the Terran-Kilrathi War, the Confederation stopped fielding them in the late 2660’s. Some fighters and most bombers are FTL capable, allowing a carrier to launch attacks into neighboring star systems without itself having to leave the system it’s in.

The fact that FTL travel is possible only at specific, well mapped-out points means that a force of capital ships is unlikely to get the jump on a carrier, but also means that any jump point into enemy territory can be mined and fortified (though they rarely ever seem to be). Jumppoint FTL travel also allows for the “Get on or get left behind” sort of combat landing of small craft aboard carriers seen in BattleStar Galactica, although FTL-capable fighters would be able to cover their motherships until after the jump, at which point they’d simply have to jump out behind the carrier.

The Honor Harrington series of books uses a somewhat arbitrary limitation on the ships (due to the gravity wedges formed by their engines, a ship can neither attack nor be attacked from directly above or below) to make broadside-to-broadside combat the order of the day, with capital ships forming wall formations to maximise their collective firepower. The weapons of choice are thermonuclear missiles, traveling at very high speeds, and powerful beam weapons, used at shorter distances. Smaller missiles and lasers are used to knock down incoming missiles and small craft. In the later books, small, fast gunboats and missile boats are also used in large numbers to swarm enemy capital ships, overwhelming the ships’ defenses by attacking from multiple directions, often in support of friendly capital ships that are carrying out their usual missile broadside attacks. Electronics warfare is used extensively to conceal the position and/or identity of ships and fleets, or to cause incoming missiles to veer off course.

As for how a future space battle would happen in real life? You probably would see, as has been mentioned by others here, capital ships equipped with long range drones and missiles fighting it out at very long range. A ship would likely be lightly armored, unless some revolutionary discovery was made in regards to powerplants or lightweight, effective armor. The last 50 years has shown a dropoff in the use of heavy armor on warships as it is, as it has become more economical and practical to find ways to shoot down incoming ordinance or to destroy the launcher from beyond it’s practical range. You probably won’t see fighters, though you could see various small craft piloted by humans for utility purposes.

You would likely also see drone ships, such as a freighter or a picket ship that requires no human crew, traveling on a pre-programmed course with pre-programmed (or possibly even calculated on-the-fly) responses to situations. A warship would most likely have a human somewhere in the command circuit, even if he was at a desk thousands of kilometers away, his only job to tell the computer “yes or no” on any given course of action.

That said, from a literary standpoint, fleets of droneships fighting it out at long distances just isn’t as entertaining as having squadrons of fighters duking it out in a big furball while their motherships beat eachother senseless at close range, even if it isn’t very realistic.

Peter F. Hamilton Night’s Dawn trilogy had another take on the fighter/carrier model. Warships carried hundreds of “combat wasps”, which were somewhere between smart missiles and disposable unmanned fighters. Combat wasps carried various different payloads - fusion bombs, single-shot gamma ray lasers, EMP pulse generators, and such. Combat consisted of ships some distance firing wasps at each other, each trying to get a combat wasp past the wasps fired by the other ship. There were no shields, and generally a single wasp reaching a ship would be enough to cripple or destroy it. Ships did carry antimissile weapons in the form of beam cannons and railguns, but these only gave a slight chance of shooting down an incoming combat wasp, so combats were typically decided by numbers - the fleet that ran out of wasps to fire first would lose.

What are the sensor capabilities? Active or passive? Some of the original ideas for carriers were to have planes act both as airborne spotters for the cruisers, carriers and battleship guns as well as far ranging scouts to locate the enemy fleets. Given the current importance of aircraft in performing sensor duties I could certainly see the value of having remote sensor vessels to expand the listening range. (Granted, space has no horizon (well, no uneventful horizon)) Certainly if I have some sort of active sensor I’d prefer to have the primary emitters be far, far away from my main fleet (which would itself be a fairly diffuse arrangement I would assume).

Do I have superluminal detection and communications? If so then I can just located the enemy using my radar gizmo, fire some superluminal projectiles out of my gun and hope for the best?

What’s my propulsion system like/what speeds can I travel at? If I am at all “fuel” limited then damn straight it makes sense to send subsidiary vessels of more or less pure military utility (fighters/bombers/torpedo boats/drones/missiles/whatever) than to maneuver my main vessel. If they are really fast (small fraction of c) and distances are moderately far (l,ight minutes or more, perhaps) , then I need a fairly smart controller to make sure that my ordnance isn’t decoyed away from the real target (and that the target is in fact a hostile vessel). AI is great if you have it (and it won’t revolt, as AI’s inevitably do). Otherwise a manned vessel would be preferable - which probably means a round trip. The faster and farther the strike the less likely a successful round trip becomes. And locating the home carrier if there are still enemy vessels out there will be tons 'o fun.

Movies and TV are both constrained by the necessity of showing something on the screen. Firing at something really far away and then waiting for an hour (or day) or two for the outcome while hoping your defenses can stop the incoming that you probably can’t outmaneuver just ain’t much fun.

This is one of the reasons that I like Star Trek TOS. I like the idea of the space battles being more like battleships slugging it out.

I dislike the idea that a snub fight could take down a death star or a star destroyer, (as they frequently do in the X-Wing game)

As opposed to carriers or well armored battleships? One “snub” fighter shouldn’t be able to do so, barring the “golden bb” that just get’s lucky (a la HMS Hood or USS Arizona) but a swarm of them should be able to do substantial damage. Granted, spaceships can’t sink, but half the time in WWII a battleship actually sinking was a formality anyways, its hulk being useless regardless of its position relative to the surface of the ocean (though remaining crew would likely dispute this).

One thing that’s (almost) never utilized is the idea of a soft-kill or mission-kill. One of the most vulnerable things on a ship is often the sensor suite and fire control. Once the eyes have been damaged a ship should get the hell out of there.

To solidify my own geek cred here I want to offer some thoughts on the above. While off-topic I hope I’ll still be a worthy contributor.

To wit:

Think about what you’re saying in the above. And then think about what it means in terms of the sociology of the governments and the peoples involved.

Klingons. Warlord-like council government that oversees what appear to be largely autonomous family structures. Society presumes that while all serve the empire all must also pursue individual fame and glory for personal success and advancement. Hence the focus on smaller ships with crews considered expendable. But because of this fact the glory earned by ships commanders and their crews in enhanced and societal mobility in enhanced.

Romulans. Autocratic centralized government that oversees all functions of life from birth to death. Individual accomplishments and abilities are recognized but only in the context of how they serve the empire. Casting aside the will of the government for ones own advancement or sense of morality is a thing to be avoided and can be punished. This leads to a focus on large capital-class warships with, I think it can be safely assumed, a strict hierarchy in terms of the officer class. One advances in this society through strict adherence to the chain of command and societal structures.

Federation. Some weird combination of socialism and almost Randian ‘excel and be recognized’ behavior. A president that can clearly be ignored by the colonies out in the boondocks. A ‘navy’ (Starfleet) that states its primary mission as exploration and discovery. Debate and discussion rule the day but even when firm rules are laid down (a la the Prime Directive) independent-acting ships captains disregard it at an astonishing rate. This leads to ships of all sizes, large, medium and small which allows the individual to find the type of situation to which they are best suited. In short, they can’t make up their mind because the want to please everyone. Typical.

Interesting question.

I sort of like C.J. Cherryh’s take on the carrier/fighter meme in her Downbelow Station universe. The “carrier” is functionally a full battleship tasked with the main combat responsibilities, but rather than carry single or two-person little stunt fighters, it carries four of what are something more akin to corvettes. Very fast, very heavily-armed strike ships that lack the FTL of the big carriers. This not only allows the carrier in battle too function as carrier group with heavily armed picket ships that can multiply the angles of attack, but it also gives it increased strategic range by allowing a carrier to skirt through a system and detach a rider, where it can hide, observe traffic via passive sensors or commerce raid or whatever. I think they were designed to carry up to 32 assault troopers as well.

So vessels much more multi-purpose and effective than little fighters.

  • Tamerlane

I think it would depend on the difference between offence and defence. If defence of ships is weak, you’re going to see a lot more small ships - it’s less important if you lose a small ship as there are many others. If defence of ships is strong than you’re going to require more powerful weapons to breach those defences, which usually means bigger ships.

What he said.

In BG there are no shields and apparently no beam weapons, at least none worth deploying. This mean kinetic weapons, conventional explosives, and nukes, vs. armor plating. In the BG pilot we saw a very good reason to make a Battlestar as massive as a small asteroid: to survive a proximity nuke explosion. Given that both sides seem to have limited supplies of nukes (the Cylons stockpiled for forty years, then used nearly all of them on the Colonies :wink: ), that they do have a good way of spotting nukes (“radiological alarm!”) and a fighting chance of intercepting incoming nukes before they enter kill range, then it makes sense to have Battlestars be massive.

We’ve seen that the weapons aboard small fighters are more than sufficient to disable or destroy anything but a heavily armored warship. So altogether you want lots a little fighters OR a hugely armored capital ship. Anything inbetween is of little use.

The FTL jump technology in use also effects what ship strategy you use: given the vastness of interstellar space, a capital ship can almost always hide if it wants to. This makes it desirable to have a big “base” ship that can lurk in the outback then launch raiders towards it’s targets; while if you want to find the capital ship you need lots of small scout craft.

Quartz and Lumpy make excellent points. I also agree that a single X-Wing taking down an artificial moon is pretty silly. A B-Wing, maybe. :smiley:

Personally, I really like the space combat portrayed in The Mote In God’s Eye and its sequel, The Gripping Hand. Ships have shields, but if the generators are overloaded they blow up and the ship is destroyed. They can also be temporarily burned through with very high energy weapons such as gamma lasers and tactical nukes. Outside of combat, the shields dissipate absorbed weapon energy by radiating heat into space. (Well, inside of combat too, but usually the shield has a net gain of energy until after.) There is FTL, but it only works at certain points. Other than that, ships are limited to relativistic speeds. The smallest combat ship, if i’m remembering correctly, could be described as a missile corvette with a small crew and a bunch of weapons. Anything smaller would lack the power to punch through a shield.

Define ‘weak’ and ‘strong’, though? And doesn’t it depend on the capability of the sensors and especially the engines available? I’ve always thought that any scenario where a space battle would take place sort of presumes the availability of high-powered engines. And if those are available you just strap them to a guidance module and fuel tank (with maybe a slab of pig-iron to make up some mass), let them take a good run-up and fire them at any tempting target. A few hundred kilos moving at a decent speed is going to be hellishly effective, especially in a swarm. Like Ballistic Missile Defense but at 10 or 100 times the speeds.
The Night’s Dawn universe mentioned earlier had antimatter-fuelled combat wasps capable of sustaining 40g manouvres while dispensing submunitions, chaff, etc. - stopping those would be a challenge unless you assume superb sensors and some fairly mental beam weapons.

On the other hand, if engines are feeble, then there will be more time to spot and take down incoming, so you would feel more comfortable in a big ship.