Bikewer
Penultimate Amazing
Space fighters
The idea of space combat involving some sort of fighter craft is a staple of SciFi films. I don’t know the earliest depiction of such military craft, but most film and TV series have shown small, fighter-aircraft sized vessels which maneuver much like WWII prop aircraft and fire unknown bolts of energy that mimic tracer rounds. To those with even a bit of science background, such craft are laughable, of course. The directors/writers of these films and series seem unable even to extrapolate from military hardware that we have now, and as a result the “fighters†seem rather silly.
What would a realistic space “fighter†look like? What kind of weapons would it have?
How would it be deployed?
The idea of a large “carrier†type ship is probably a sound one. Just as in contemporary navies, you’d think that a fleet of space-warships would include a number of types, ranging from potent cruisers with heavy weaponry to smaller support vessels and so forth.
The idea of fleet-protecting fighters would probably be carried over to space warfare.
The powerplant of choice is probably going to remain the rocket, in some form. Although it’s fun to speculate about magneto-gravimetric drives, “inertialless†drives, or whatever, none of these devices exist save in the minds of sci-fi authors, to my knowledge. Devices that are being developed for space research and exploration, such as ion drives, do not promise sufficient performance for military craft. Rockets are well-proven, and can be refined even more, but present considerable problems. First, they are very thirsty. The high-performance WWII-vintage fighter, the ME-262 “Cometâ€, had only about 3 minutes of engine time with it’s fuel load.
This means our fighter is going to need rather large fuel tanks for the necessary combustible and oxygenating agents. Of course, in space, we need not worry about aerodynamics, but we do need to worry about mass and inertia. More mass means slower acceleration and maneuvering. The sleek, highly maneuverable craft that movie directors love are probably not possible with foreseeable technology.
Fueling will be a problem too. Our “carrier†must carry large quantities of highly-volatile fuels and oxygenating agents, and fueling fighters in combat could be risky indeed. The Germans learned this well with above-mentioned Comet, loosing more to fueling accidents than to enemy action.
Maneuvering our fighter will be somewhat difficult as well. Using rockets, it would seem that some form of thrust-vectoring (steering with the rocket’s nozzle) would be best for primary maneuver, while attitude jets would make fine adjustment. I have speculated about the use of potent gyroscopes for attitude adjustment.
The energy weapons of film are probably not going to work either. Lasers capable of generating sufficient power can be built but are large and bulky, and require enormous energy. The proposed idea for an ICBM shoot-down aircraft requires a 747-class aircraft to carry the necessary equipment.
Particle beams came to the public attention during the initial Star Wars research, but again, promising weapons were large and bulky, and required huge outlays of energy.
One could conceivably make fighter craft largely immune to laser fire by making them highly reflective.
More likely, we would see extrapolations of present weapons systems. Currently, we can use fire-and-forget missile systems that can engage and destroy enemy aircraft at 100 miles plus. These can be targeted by the pilot using advanced radar and fired with the ease of a video game. Select target and push button.
In space, such missiles would achieve higher velocity and may have more range as well.
They would require thrust-vectoring for maneuver, however. Presumably, by such time as space warfare would be possible, “brilliant†weapons that operate autonomously would be commonplace. In fact, it’s easy to consider that fighter aircraft would be largely unmanned, and simply launched from the carrier with “pilots†remaining aboard, monitoring their fighters through highly-evolved feedback systems. Communications lag would no doubt limit range, however, and it might be conceivable to send a few human pilots out with the ability to control a number of drone fighters.
Much as in today’s aircraft, projectile weapons would be available for use at closer ranges. With no trajectory to worry about, and no loss of velocity due to atmospheric drag on projectiles, range and targeting would be simplified. Even small projectiles could be extremely damaging at the great speeds that would characterize space warfare.
Such projectiles would endanger all and sundry in the combat area, and timed warheads might be necessary to ensure the safety of one’s own fleet.
Advanced projectile drivers like rail guns would no doubt be effective space weapons, especially with computerized targeting.
We should assume that target acquisition would advance along present lines, with ever-more sophisticated radars and other detection systems being employed. Stealth technology will no doubt be of very high importance, and our fighter aircraft may well look like a bulky, multi-faceted ball.
Electronic warfare might assume a great deal of importance as well, and space fleets might spend a lot of time attempting to monitor each other’s IFF (Identification, Friend or Foe) frequencies, radars, and the like, and even trying to hack command and control systems with small, stealthy intelligence and electronic warfare devices.
Sure, screaming around in an X-wing or Viper might well be a lot more fun, but most likely the future will be far different. Anyone else tempted to speculate?
The idea of space combat involving some sort of fighter craft is a staple of SciFi films. I don’t know the earliest depiction of such military craft, but most film and TV series have shown small, fighter-aircraft sized vessels which maneuver much like WWII prop aircraft and fire unknown bolts of energy that mimic tracer rounds. To those with even a bit of science background, such craft are laughable, of course. The directors/writers of these films and series seem unable even to extrapolate from military hardware that we have now, and as a result the “fighters†seem rather silly.
What would a realistic space “fighter†look like? What kind of weapons would it have?
How would it be deployed?
The idea of a large “carrier†type ship is probably a sound one. Just as in contemporary navies, you’d think that a fleet of space-warships would include a number of types, ranging from potent cruisers with heavy weaponry to smaller support vessels and so forth.
The idea of fleet-protecting fighters would probably be carried over to space warfare.
The powerplant of choice is probably going to remain the rocket, in some form. Although it’s fun to speculate about magneto-gravimetric drives, “inertialless†drives, or whatever, none of these devices exist save in the minds of sci-fi authors, to my knowledge. Devices that are being developed for space research and exploration, such as ion drives, do not promise sufficient performance for military craft. Rockets are well-proven, and can be refined even more, but present considerable problems. First, they are very thirsty. The high-performance WWII-vintage fighter, the ME-262 “Cometâ€, had only about 3 minutes of engine time with it’s fuel load.
This means our fighter is going to need rather large fuel tanks for the necessary combustible and oxygenating agents. Of course, in space, we need not worry about aerodynamics, but we do need to worry about mass and inertia. More mass means slower acceleration and maneuvering. The sleek, highly maneuverable craft that movie directors love are probably not possible with foreseeable technology.
Fueling will be a problem too. Our “carrier†must carry large quantities of highly-volatile fuels and oxygenating agents, and fueling fighters in combat could be risky indeed. The Germans learned this well with above-mentioned Comet, loosing more to fueling accidents than to enemy action.
Maneuvering our fighter will be somewhat difficult as well. Using rockets, it would seem that some form of thrust-vectoring (steering with the rocket’s nozzle) would be best for primary maneuver, while attitude jets would make fine adjustment. I have speculated about the use of potent gyroscopes for attitude adjustment.
The energy weapons of film are probably not going to work either. Lasers capable of generating sufficient power can be built but are large and bulky, and require enormous energy. The proposed idea for an ICBM shoot-down aircraft requires a 747-class aircraft to carry the necessary equipment.
Particle beams came to the public attention during the initial Star Wars research, but again, promising weapons were large and bulky, and required huge outlays of energy.
One could conceivably make fighter craft largely immune to laser fire by making them highly reflective.
More likely, we would see extrapolations of present weapons systems. Currently, we can use fire-and-forget missile systems that can engage and destroy enemy aircraft at 100 miles plus. These can be targeted by the pilot using advanced radar and fired with the ease of a video game. Select target and push button.
In space, such missiles would achieve higher velocity and may have more range as well.
They would require thrust-vectoring for maneuver, however. Presumably, by such time as space warfare would be possible, “brilliant†weapons that operate autonomously would be commonplace. In fact, it’s easy to consider that fighter aircraft would be largely unmanned, and simply launched from the carrier with “pilots†remaining aboard, monitoring their fighters through highly-evolved feedback systems. Communications lag would no doubt limit range, however, and it might be conceivable to send a few human pilots out with the ability to control a number of drone fighters.
Much as in today’s aircraft, projectile weapons would be available for use at closer ranges. With no trajectory to worry about, and no loss of velocity due to atmospheric drag on projectiles, range and targeting would be simplified. Even small projectiles could be extremely damaging at the great speeds that would characterize space warfare.
Such projectiles would endanger all and sundry in the combat area, and timed warheads might be necessary to ensure the safety of one’s own fleet.
Advanced projectile drivers like rail guns would no doubt be effective space weapons, especially with computerized targeting.
We should assume that target acquisition would advance along present lines, with ever-more sophisticated radars and other detection systems being employed. Stealth technology will no doubt be of very high importance, and our fighter aircraft may well look like a bulky, multi-faceted ball.
Electronic warfare might assume a great deal of importance as well, and space fleets might spend a lot of time attempting to monitor each other’s IFF (Identification, Friend or Foe) frequencies, radars, and the like, and even trying to hack command and control systems with small, stealthy intelligence and electronic warfare devices.
Sure, screaming around in an X-wing or Viper might well be a lot more fun, but most likely the future will be far different. Anyone else tempted to speculate?
