Space fightercraft in RPGs.

[Xavier Onassiss]

Re: Space fightercraft in RPGs.

 

It doesn't have to be crazy' date=' just [i']enough[/i]. Two reactors, each capable of supplying 100% of the ship's power needs is plenty. That's the way a Nimitz class carrier does it. It might make for dramatic television, but if you have to decide which of two mission critical systems you're not going to use because you haven't got the power, your naval engineers are doing it wrong.

 

On the other hand, limitations on how much waste heat you can dissipate without using your fragile non-combat-rated folding radiators would be entirely realistic.

 

Score one for Zeropoint! That's exactly how I did it in my campaign: all those fancy zero-endurance energy weapons didn't have limited ammo, but they had limited supplies of coolant, built as recoverable charges. The means of recovery was deploying the ship's radiators to recycle the coolant and dissipate the heat, but doing that in combat would get them shot off. I also gave all spacecraft the following complication:

 

Dependence: Heat radiators Powers Gain 14- Activation Roll (Easy To Obtain; 6 Hours)

 

After 6 hours with the radiators folded up, things start to malfunction, and keep getting worse due to heat build-up. After three days or so, nothing will work -- it all shuts down when the activation roll drops below 3. That's probably a bit generous: maybe the increment should be 1 hour. But the fact that spacecraft have this complication in my game, and the players are aware of it, gives it enough of a realistic atmosphere for me. I don't want to be so hard-nosed about the 'realism thing' that I make the game unplayable, or worse yet, no *&^%$#@! fun.

[BarretWallace]

Re: Space fightercraft in RPGs.

 

I don't want to be so hard-nosed about the 'realism thing' that I make the game unplayable' date=' or worse yet, no [i']*&^%$#@![/i] fun.

 

Yeah, and if the game ceases being fun, then it's more like work (which at least comes with a paycheck to counterbalance the lack of fun).

[Jhamin]

Re: Space fightercraft in RPGs.

 

True...if you have a targetting solution from that distance, if you're willing to risk bringing your ship into missile range, and if it's not needed somewhere else.

Fighters, or more accurately in this case, parasite launch platforms, give you flexibility that you will NEVER engineer into a 100% expendable missile, for simple economic reasons. A Carrier and it's parasites can be in two places at once. A single craft can't.

 

Range as we usually understand it is determined by Gravity and Sight lines. Neither apply in deep space (around a planet, but not deep space). If you can see them you can probably hit them. A missile that is out of fuel in deep space is still moving just as fast, it just can't change course anymore. There is no such thing as "hanging out of range of their missiles", there is only being far enough away for your side to destroy the incoming missiles or get out of the way before they get to you.

 

"Two places at once" is only valuable if that distance gives us some advantage. If I can detect the carrier I can try to kill it while it's fighters are inbound, then leave. They either have to alter course to intercept my missiles or let their ride home die. If they can "jump" to me or FTL to me, then I should be able to "Jump" missiles or fighters right on top of them and distances start to become irrelevant.

 

If you have enough fuel to get there, stop, turn around, and return, I can use that same amount of fuel to create a missile with 4x the acceleration (thus reaching a much higher top speed before they run out of gas) giving you a lot less time to react.

 

I'll take the economic advantages and the capacity to fine-tune my attack from optimum distance every time.

 

This really comes down to how good everyone's computers are. If I can plot a targeting solution from my home that is good enough to kill you I don't need fighters in between me and you. I'll take my shot and not waste a lot of resources on Fighters that only help me fine tune something that is already good enough.

 

If I need to fly right up to WWII Dogfighting distance you before I can get a good solution (Like they apparently did in Star Wars), my computers are worse than the one's NASA is using right now.

 

Fighters only work somewhere in between these two extremes.

[dmjalund]

Re: Space fightercraft in RPGs.

 

n space, range is primarily controlled by accuracy. projectiles/beans are only as accurate as its launching vehicle is steady. Missiles can only correct it's trajectory as long as it has fuel. once it runs out, it becomes a projectile.

[Xavier Onassiss]

Re: Space fightercraft in RPGs.

 

Another major factor in space combat targeting is the light-speed lag. If you're using active sensors, your signals have to bounce off the target, then return to you. Then you adjust your aim, and your weapons also have to travel to the target, at light speed or less. If your target changes course a bit, you won't know about it right away. As the range increases, you reach a point at which you're not really seeing the target -- you're seeing an image of where the target used to be which is pretty much useless.

[Sundog]

Re: Space fightercraft in RPGs.

 

Range as we usually understand it is determined by Gravity and Sight lines. Neither apply in deep space (around a planet, but not deep space). If you can see them you can probably hit them. A missile that is out of fuel in deep space is still moving just as fast, it just can't change course anymore. There is no such thing as "hanging out of range of their missiles", there is only being far enough away for your side to destroy the incoming missiles or get out of the way before they get to you.

 

"Two places at once" is only valuable if that distance gives us some advantage. If I can detect the carrier I can try to kill it while it's fighters are inbound, then leave. They either have to alter course to intercept my missiles or let their ride home die. If they can "jump" to me or FTL to me, then I should be able to "Jump" missiles or fighters right on top of them and distances start to become irrelevant.

 

If you have enough fuel to get there, stop, turn around, and return, I can use that same amount of fuel to create a missile with 4x the acceleration (thus reaching a much higher top speed before they run out of gas) giving you a lot less time to react.

 

Sure. And that's just one of a lot of reasons why missiles are going to be the standard weapons.

However, unless you're postulating high relativistic velocities where the missile arrives only quite shortly after it's visual signal does, I'm going to have plenty of time to deal with them no matter how much velocity advantage they have. The distances in space makes the idea of "time to react" fairly laughable.

That, of course, works both ways. Simply put, long-range strkes will have to pull every trick in the book in order to break any sort of reasonable defence. I most definitely include time-on-taarget strikes from multiple vectors - which would be most easily conducted using multiple launch platforms. A single platform CAN pull off that trick, but only with considerable pre-strike maneuvering and preparation - something I would NOT want to do while under enemy observation.

Oh and unless your missiles are designed to shut off their drives and cruise before re-igniting for terminal maneuvers (which is not as easy a trick as it sounds, though the advantages might well be worth it) once they run out of fuel they aren't going to hit anything mobile. On the other hand, defensive installations and planets can't dodge.

 

 

 

This really comes down to how good everyone's computers are. If I can plot a targeting solution from my home that is good enough to kill you I don't need fighters in between me and you. I'll take my shot and not waste a lot of resources on Fighters that only help me fine tune something that is already good enough.

 

If I need to fly right up to WWII Dogfighting distance you before I can get a good solution (Like they apparently did in Star Wars), my computers are worse than the one's NASA is using right now.

 

Fighters only work somewhere in between these two extremes.

 

Dead on. I just have serious doubts about our reaching the level where parasite platforms will cease to be viable.

[Old Man]

Re: Space fightercraft in RPGs.

 

Relevant link: http://josephshoer.com/blog/2009/12/thoughts-on-space-battles/

[megaplayboy]

Re: Space fightercraft in RPGs.

 

Actually, the fighters only need 2 times the Delta-V, IF their launch platform shows up to pick them up after deployment. And if they fire (smaller) missiles and begin deceleration at the halfway point, they can get away with 1x the Delta-V.

[Zeropoint]

Re: Space fightercraft in RPGs.

 

If the fighters are launching their missiles from that far away, why not just put a drop tank/first stage on the missile and dispense with the fighter? Also, wouldn't that mean that your fighters would come to a stop with dry tanks and empty missile racks at the enemy position? I hope for their sake that there's no enemy left!

[Sundog]

Re: Space fightercraft in RPGs.

 

If the fighters are launching their missiles from that far away' date=' why not just put a drop tank/first stage on the missile and dispense with the fighter? Also, wouldn't that mean that your fighters would come to a stop with dry tanks and empty missile racks at the enemy position? I hope for their sake that there's no enemy left![/quote']

 

Targetting. A missile can be launched (in space) from any distance and will still hit - provided A) the target doesn't dodge and you have an adequate firing solution. A) depends on what your target is, and requires you getting into range of your sensory systems. Or you can mount those systems on your missiles - which would be utterly absurd, since you're basically mounting big, expensive sensors on a disposable platform.

 

Also, the assumption that a fighter will require a lot of fuel to do it's mission is highly debatable. A short burn to build up cruising velocity, get to the launch point, turn to the new vector, burn to rendezvous with the carrier. Better yet, spend NO fuel to change your direction - slingshot around a planet instead. Space is not empty.

[Zeropoint]

Re: Space fightercraft in RPGs.

 

An unmanned missile bus would still be cheaper and more maneuverable than a manned fighter, even with all those assumptions in place.

 

Targetting. A missile can be launched (in space) from any distance and will still hit - provided A) the target doesn't dodge and you have an adequate firing solution. A) depends on what your target is,

 

If it can dodge a missile launched at full range, why can't it dodge the same missile launched at half range?

 

requires you getting into range of your sensory systems. Or you can mount those systems on your missiles - which would be utterly absurd, since you're basically mounting big, expensive sensors on a disposable platform.

 

Well, the missiles will have to carry some sort of guidance system, including sensors, regardless of where they're launched. You could just hand off predictions about where the target's going when you launch them, and have the missiles correct when they get closer--that's assuming that a missile-mounted sensor won't be able to see the target at full range. I would expect that a sensor capable of picking up a spaceship within a few AU (especially when you already know where to look for it) wouldn't be more than a couple liters and five or six kg, in any society advanced enough to need to build space missiles.

 

Also, the assumption that a fighter will require a lot of fuel to do it's mission is highly debatable. A short burn to build up cruising velocity, get to the launch point, turn to the new vector, burn to rendezvous with the carrier.

 

If you're planning on stopping when you get back, that's still four times the fuel for the same mass as a one-way trip. I guess you could cut it down to three times the fuel by landing with an arrestor cable.

 

Better yet, spend NO fuel to change your direction - slingshot around a planet instead. Space is not empty.

 

But the enemy isn't always considerate enough to pick a battle site that's convenient for you.

[Sundog]

Re: Space fightercraft in RPGs.

 

An unmanned missile bus would still be cheaper and more maneuverable than a manned fighter' date=' even with all those assumptions in place.[/quote']

 

Certainly. So what? A fighter is not a missile. It's a launch platform. It enhances the capabilities of your missiles, it doesn't replace them.

 

If it can dodge a missile launched at full range, why can't it dodge the same missile launched at half range?

 

Half the range means half the time to maneuver - you reduce massively your opponent's cone of maneuver - the area where he could be when the munition reaches that zone. Thus, you need to cover, not one half, but closer to a quarter the volume of space he could be in. Plus, if you're dealing with any sort of lightspeed lag, you will have a much better idea of where he is NOW. A closer shot will ALWAYS be more likely to engage a mobile target in a space battle.

 

 

 

Well, the missiles will have to carry some sort of guidance system, including sensors, regardless of where they're launched. You could just hand off predictions about where the target's going when you launch them, and have the missiles correct when they get closer--that's assuming that a missile-mounted sensor won't be able to see the target at full range. I would expect that a sensor capable of picking up a spaceship within a few AU (especially when you already know where to look for it) wouldn't be more than a couple liters and five or six kg, in any society advanced enough to need to build space missiles.

 

Sure...if your opponent is dumb enough to not be using decoys, scramblers, jamming and every other aspect of ECM and ECCM he can get his greedy little paws on. Anything worth hitting is going to be doing all in it's power to avoid being hit, especially including anything that will degrade your missiles' lock on. And the ECM power of a ship will always be greater than that of a missile.

Now, at short ranges that isn't going to be a huge problem - a ship silhouetted against space up close is going to be like a giant neon sign saying HIT ME! even if just from the heat emissions of it's life support. The trick is getting your warshots into that range while still having the fuel to pull evasives and terminal maneuvers against the active defenses and the target. To do THAT will require a powerful set of sensors to try and burn through the enemy defenses and get a clear lock-on. If you fire from too far out, you're going to waste missiles, may be not get a kill. Fighters let you have the best of both worlds - you keep your ship out at ranges where hits are unlikely, while your missiles launch from way closer.

Now, it could be argued that a full-size ship would have better ECM and sensors than a little fighter, and there's some truth to that. However, that advantage disappears if you link the sensor systems of a group of fighters - can you say "synthetic aperture array"?

 

 

 

If you're planning on stopping when you get back, that's still four times the fuel for the same mass as a one-way trip. I guess you could cut it down to three times the fuel by landing with an arrestor cable.

 

Yup. You're going to use more fuel this way - the fuel for the fighters out and back, the fuel for the missiles. I'll make that trade for increased chance of a kill.

 

 

But the enemy isn't always considerate enough to pick a battle site that's convenient for you.

 

True, it's likely not always possible. But it is something to keep in mind.

[megaplayboy]

Re: Space fightercraft in RPGs.

 

Hmm, 15gees, "eyeballs in", for 5 minutes(basically, a pilot in a g-suit laying flat on their back inside the fighter, within human tolerance), could accelerate a fighter to 45km/second, around 100,000 mph. Not too shabby. If you then drop it to 3 gees for another 25 minutes, you get to 90 km/second, which is almost fast enough to go from the earth to the moon in one hour.

Now, if you come up with "inertial dampeners" or "gravitic compensators" or somesuch, well then, the sky's the limit on acceleration and maneuver. At low to moderate speeds a starfighter could well be ridiculously maneuverable(think "bootlegger reverse in space")