Comments on Rocketpunk Manifesto: Space Fighters, Not

With lasers you need an approximate range to focus...

2012-02-08T09:21:11.473-08:00

With lasers you need an approximate range to focus the beam, but the range need not be precise. Big difference from guns, where a range error of a few percent means a clean miss.

Fighting inside a mine shaft strikes me as a form of short-range operation - just the environment in which I see piloted 'gunships' as being viable. In contrast to open-space fighting at Stupendous Range.

Ok, I guess I'm tiresome. :( But i'd like...

2012-02-05T02:27:17.110-08:00

Ok, I guess I'm tiresome. :(

But i'd like to share one more idea, a special mission, that requires space fighters to be manned.

Asteroid mine capturing, with its giant shafts, it could be like a Death Star scenario, fighters have to deal with inner defence systems, and you cant just remote control them inside.

About lasers : I have doubts, that a simple bearing is enough, if the enemy has mirror armor cooled by liquid helium, you have to focus to an area smaller than your mirrors or lenses to deal a good damage, that rather requires exact coordinates.
You can overheat a smaller ship...
But i dont think, tracking a fly is so easy task (not with enemy jamming at least), your mirrors deforme due to heat if you emit a continuous strong pulse.

I asked other people, they have said, on film, longer objects APPEAR to be slower (even if it is a space shuttle) otherwise yes, smaller ships are more agile than giants, if they have roughly the same design.

But again, i make it clear, that i respected and accepted (most) things you have said, Torpedo Boats are okay, but to build dedicated carriers for them isnt superior to a battleship.
And normally, when there are only two sides on space, drones are just fine.

Im still processing the topic, i have one more thing.

Oh I wanted to write something... I still couldnt...

2012-02-03T00:37:26.691-08:00

Oh I wanted to write something...

I still couldnt read everything sorry... :( Was there anything about a Space Battleship Yamato like rule?

However... I'm still wondering a bit. Okay, we...

2012-01-31T10:22:53.701-08:00

However... I'm still wondering a bit.
Okay, we have agreed, they will most likely keep manned spacefighters on orbit.

But isnt there ANY possibility, that giant masses somehow hinder the acceleration even in space?
I read about VASIMIR design, it uses pretty strong magnetic fields.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VASIMR
"Powerful superconducting electromagnets, employed to contain hot plasma, generate tesla-range magnetic fields.[4] They can present problems with other on board devices and also can produce unwanted torque by interacting with the magnetosphere. To counter this latter effect, the VF-200 will consist of two 100 kW thruster units packaged together, with the magnetic field of each thruster oriented in opposite directions in order to make a zero-torque magnetic quadrapole.[5]"

It is okay until you have to 100 kW unit.
But what if you have a dozen unit, or bigger units, cant that mean that interference or waste treatment will cause you more and more trouble, and you can just put a ten times bigger engine in a ship ten times heavyer?
In a medium, friction limits your speed, the bigger you are, the bigger friction. In space, no friction when you simply fly... but if you accelerate, then isnt really any chance to meet similar problems?

Another question, how much accuracy can you have in case of orbital bombing?
I read, that you should use short wavelengths in space, but in air (at least in Terran air) they quickly scatter.
Is it possible to make precise strikes, that dont destroy at least a big house block?

Ok, thanks. OFF : About FTL thingy, I could quote...

2012-01-30T12:18:17.032-08:00

Ok, thanks.

OFF : About FTL thingy, I could quote some things from a "rogue" scientist (the whole essay is Hungarian :( ), maybe it would be interesting a bit.

Well, about your questions, to achieve a small ...

2012-01-30T11:20:16.548-08:00
Well, about your questions, to achieve a small CEP, you have to move your ship close to the turret, so it can attack you IMHO.
(And it can take out many guided missiles.)

Maybe. I remain unconvinced that a turret that is weak enough that you can worry about collateral damage (if it's too big, you have to take it out, and fix the mine later) is going to be guarding a mine like that. As for missiles, that's what overkill is for.

In case of a moon surface attack, it isnt impossible to create a dust cloud above you, or launch a small drone from a mountain top, to tap your communications.
That drone would have to achieve orbit, and maneuver into the beam without being noticed. Not an easy thing to do, particularly as it will move relative to the target ships.

But anyway I yield, thanks for having a normal debate.
No problem. You've given me a lot to think about.

Is there any thread to discuss, how could you justify epic Star Wars like things in a soft sci?
Even if one says, that is only a book, I can find out fictional technology, I can have hyperspace, it isnt bad to care about casuality, explain things in a logical way.
Not that I can think of. People generally don't come here looking for soft sci-fi. We did have some interesting discussions of FTL in early 2011.

Well, about your questions, to achieve a small CEP...

2012-01-30T10:46:01.495-08:00
Well, about your questions, to achieve a small CEP, you have to move your ship close to the turret, so it can attack you IMHO.
(And it can take out many guided missiles.)
In case of a moon surface attack, it isnt impossible to create a dust cloud above you, or launch a small drone from a mountain top, to tap your communications.

But anyway I yield, thanks for having a normal debate.

( Is there any thread to discuss, how could you justify epic Star Wars like things in a soft sci?
Even if one says, that is only a book, I can find out fictional technology, I can have hyperspace, it isnt bad to care about casuality, explain things in a logical way. )

PMF? Sorry i am not that familiar with theese a...

2012-01-30T09:24:45.164-08:00
PMF? Sorry i am not that familiar with theese acronyms.
Plausible Midfuture. It's the standard tech assumptions here. Things like nuke-electric, lasers, etc.

Well in case of that mine, they can deliberately put the turret next to it, to prevent capturing.

Not sure how well that would work, honestly. The CEP on a laser is probably going to be smaller then the turret, and ditto for the missile. It might happen, but it's a once in a blue moon thing, not a reason to build your force around fighters.

And yes of course, i dont want to kill humans... but then i wouldnt start a war in the beginning...
That's not the point. The point is that if you absolutely must engage a target a close range with expendable units (otherwise, you'd move the laserstar closer), they'd better be as expendable as possible.

A moons surface is more difficult terrain than space, and the enemy might find a way to jam, block, tap even laser controls.
How? Doing anything to laser controls involves being either on or very close to the line of sight. That's very difficult to do, particularly if the enemy declines to cooperate.

So, do you say, in hard sci, manned spacefighters and living troops should act only as kinda police force?

Pretty much. The only living participants in a fleet battle would be on the drone control ships. Humans would be needed for police functions, and for patrol missions.

What do you think about an interplanetary ship, how much crew does it need, if any?
(Of course I dont want exact numbers, im rather curious about their tasks.)
First off, if you're interested in this topic (men vs. drones) I'd suggest you read Space Warfare XIII. I know that it's a really long read, but it's also an excellent discussion of the issue.
With that said, your question is extremely broad. For a commercial ship, I'm not sure. Assuming that people are needed aboard at all, half a dozen should be sufficient.
For a warship, that depends heavily on what it has to do. For a patrol vessel, I'd say somewhere around 18 minimum. For one thing, there are significant economies of scale in crewing. For another, I want it to be able to keep a watch on duty at all times during autonomous operation. A typical watch might be three to four people, one engineer, one or two sensor operators, and one officer. Four watches, plus a few extra bodies (medic, life support tech, maybe the captain doesn't stand watches) gives you 18 to 20 people.

Sorry, I realized too late I missed something. W...

2012-01-30T09:07:41.008-08:00
Sorry, I realized too late I missed something.

What do you think about an interplanetary ship, how much crew does it need, if any?
(Of course I dont want exact numbers, im rather curious about their tasks.)

PMF? Sorry i am not that familiar with theese acro...

2012-01-30T09:04:13.752-08:00
PMF? Sorry i am not that familiar with theese acronyms.

Well in case of that mine, they can deliberately put the turret next to it, to prevent capturing.

And yes of course, i dont want to kill humans... but then i wouldnt start a war in the beginning...
A moons surface is more difficult terrain than space, and the enemy might find a way to jam, block, tap even laser controls.

So, do you say, in hard sci, manned spacefighters and living troops should act only as kinda police force?

So you say, there has to be an irrational setti...

2012-01-30T07:34:02.531-08:00
So you say, there has to be an irrational setting, to involve humans on a deep-space fighter.

And one should only employ pilots in case of orbital combat, when there are more difficult scenarios?

(I think about, for example, you want to capture a mine on a moon, that is defended by a turret. You cant just bomb from afar, and fighters can get around the moon, and attack the turret from within the mountains.)
It has to be an unrealistic setting to involve deep-space fighters at all. Unrealistic as in not in PMF, not as in bad. I'd hesitate to use the word irrational.
I'm not even sure about pilots for pure combat missions in orbit. To put it simply, there is no reason to have a human onboard when something needs to die. There is only reason to have a human when something might need to die. Even the mine on the moon wouldn't really need a human. Why couldn't you shoot at it from afar with a guided projectile? Or laser it from afar with a laserstar? I find it really difficult to imagine a situation in which a target is so close to something that you don't want to damage to render both of those impractical. And if it is, I definitely want the fighters unmanned, as the defenses will probably kill several.

So you say, there has to be an irrational setting,...

2012-01-30T07:15:46.827-08:00
So you say, there has to be an irrational setting, to involve humans on a deep-space fighter.

And one should only employ pilots in case of orbital combat, when there are more difficult scenarios?

(I think about, for example, you want to capture a mine on a moon, that is defended by a turret. You cant just bomb from afar, and fighters can get around the moon, and attack the turret from within the mountains.)

TOM: Yes, you can expend theese fighters as mis...

2012-01-30T05:29:24.722-08:00
TOM:
Yes, you can expend theese fighters as missiles if you are desperate (of course in unmanned mode), but if you want to return them (and normally you want to return them, the hardware isnt that cheap), a human can bring back a damaged fighter, that might be beyond the ability of a computer.

For example if the laser hit fries sensitive electronics, there can be still a robust old-school backup system for the pilot, maybe a hidraulic one, for returning.
Or maybe they have to replace some burned out parts.
I think laser hits will be rather damaging, dont explode the ship.
(Fighter, gunboat whatever)
Maybe AIs shall also need training, because there can be lots of small random errors and differences.
A hydraulic backup? On a spaceship? Really?
I'm going to answer this with quotations from my posts on Space Warfare XIII.
"Damage control is not there to put the ship back together after it gets blown apart. That's the job of the shipyard. The damage control crews are there to make sure it gets to the shipyard. (I'm not claiming that DC crews never fix anything. Just that they don't do what most SF authors seem to think.) Spaceships don't sink or catch fire. Almost all damage will come from the direct hit, so DC isn't required.
There might be a little bit humans can do, but not all that much. As to "humans can keep working when the computers fail", that's a red herring. Humans will be giving orders to the computers. If the computers go down, it doesn't matter if the humans are still alive."

The human might be able to bring back more fighters then if those same fighters were unmanned, but the problem is that you're putting humans in harm's way, and putting people on a ship at all has some severe performance penalties. In terms of cost, I really doubt this is a winner.

Yes, you can expend theese fighters as missiles if...

2012-01-30T00:39:30.939-08:00
Yes, you can expend theese fighters as missiles if you are desperate (of course in unmanned mode), but if you want to return them (and normally you want to return them, the hardware isnt that cheap), a human can bring back a damaged fighter, that might be beyond the ability of a computer.

For example if the laser hit fries sensitive electronics, there can be still a robust old-school backup system for the pilot, maybe a hidraulic one, for returning.
Or maybe they have to replace some burned out parts.
I think laser hits will be rather damaging, dont explode the ship.
(Fighter, gunboat whatever)
Maybe AIs shall also need training, because there can be lots of small random errors and differences.

And there can be irrational things as well.
(For example, sorry if i am offtopic, i have an idea, that various groups of humans left the solar system, on giant mother ships, because AIs turned human society into a hedonistic, stagnating thing.
Many of them bacame religious, and they rather launch a kamikaze attack in big desperation, than trust AIs. There is a difference between a single computer and an AI)

Otherwise yes, if neutral parties involved in case of orbital combat, that is a more human scenario.

There is also the question of whether these smalle...

2012-01-29T15:00:28.985-08:00
There is also the question of whether these smaller space combat vehicles need an on-board pilot. For pure space combat missions I'm not at all persuaded that a combination of remote piloting and onboard computers can't do intercept & shoot type missions.

You're not out so much if you lose the vehicle, and indeed can expend it as a missile to engage targets outside the round-trip envelope.

Dicier missions in dicier envelopes are a different matter, but the small combatants for those missions are more 'gunship' than 'fighter.' Of course you're free to call them fighters, just as 'frigate' has referred to a different ships with different missions over the last 500 years.

I found this one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fi...

2012-01-29T12:53:02.209-08:00
I found this one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Laser_launch_hx_kare.png

Well, if the lasers heat up the main plasma engines of the fighters, you might not need such a big separate receiver unit.

Also they can have their own nuclear battery (charged up by the carrier perhaps), so they arent entirely dependant on the external power source.
If some beam misses, they can recorrect.
Basically the fighters have to give their vector from the point where they sent their own laser comm message.
And the enemy dont know, whether the beam was misaligned or not, to calculate their vector.

I think that beamed-power fighters have been discu...

2012-01-29T11:50:40.547-08:00
I think that beamed-power fighters have been discussed elsewhere, but I'm not sure exactly where.
The idea has some merit, but there are three big practical problems. The first is that the fighter has to indicate where it is going to the beamer. That requires a lot of coordination, which, while not impossible, is very difficult. And if the enemy somehow cracks the code, you have a big problem.
The second is that I don't think that military mindsets would accept it very readily. The fighters are entirely dependent on the beamer, which presents a massive vulnerability in the system. If they should so much as stray off course, they become helpless.
Third, receiving the beam is a non-trivial task. The fighter will likely be significantly larger because of collector area, and the beam must hit the collector area, or the fighter is powerless.

About point 3 : even if you make a planet surrende...

2012-01-28T02:37:37.854-08:00
About point 3 : even if you make a planet surrender, you may still have to fight partisan, guerilla attacks, riots, it is not a good idea to make too much collateral damage against them.

Well, call me stubborn... but I had another idea, when I read about laser or microwave riding rockets.

Think about it : what could tiny hard-to-hit fighters do with the power output of a big carrier ship? If it uses its lasers to EMPOWER them?
Rather than trying to hit a manuevering target two light seconds away?

/1g acceleration 4 sec light-lag it can be anywhere within 80m radius. The fighters advance one light second, they can see it in 20m radius. And they let their carrier know where will they be. /

You empower your fighters with lasers, and they attack with short ranged particle cannons. (or refocus your beams)
Of course there are losses in the process and it is more expensive than a single warship.

But think on the long run : you has to rebuild fighters rather than interplanetary ships.
The main idea of the aircraft carrier is to stay out of harm while your fighters do the job, otherwise you could deal much more damage with artillery shells.
Fighters are more easy to produce, you can manufacure them in well protected underground factories instead of big shipyards with a Nuke me! sign.
After the fight, you just go to your planet, new fighters, ready to go, no long repair jobs. (In normal process.)

Fighters wont be stopped by anti-missile mines and short (point blank) ranged batteries, they can take out interceptor missiles, dodge their shrapnels, provide additional layer of defence for the carrier.
Even if you run out of fighters, you can still fight with your lasers, but of course you want them to punish the enemy, while you are in relative safety.
If you manage to hide the carrier behind a big asteroid, you dont have to care even about acc to avoid being hit from long range lasers.

What do you think about it?

Well i saw on atomic rockets, that the analogy ...

2012-01-27T05:40:31.801-08:00
Well i saw on atomic rockets, that the analogy most close to aircraft carrier is the mothership, a gargantuan ship with own biosphere, gravity, it can house a small fleet, and a layer of parasites.

That may be the case, but in the scenarios we look at, there is generally little call for biosphere and gravity.

About point 3, if you just want to erase an army, you can bomb from orbit, but what about urban warfare?
In that case, scattering beams and collateral damage from missiles can be too big.

True. As much as anything, it depends on how much collateral damage you are prepared to accept. At the same time, troops are heavy, which makes importing them very expensive.

Could you explain a bit?

I'll try. My point is that scale differences between spacecraft (which don't necessarily have to favor smaller ships) will likely be so minor that you would only be able to notice them if you had two ships of the same overall design built to different scales. If the designs are significantly different, any performance variations due to size would be undetectable because of the design variations.

I think about the waste heat treatment.
Yes, a larger vessel can also have big radiator wings to get rid of the waste heat of the engines, but they will be vulnerable.
Otherwise, with not too extended radiators, well, previously, I have asked about the surface to mass ratios.

For one thing, I don't think surface radiators are such a good idea. Wing radiators, provided you only have 2, allow you to orient the radiators edge-on to two separate threats. Plus, given their single-sided nature, I don't know how much more mass-efficient surface radiators would be.

Also short range vessels have to carry less dead weight.

Theoretically, yes. However, they also have serious tactical limitations (assuming you're talking about fighter-class craft). And you can build short-range vessels in any size. Short-range would vary in definition, but PDSs are a very real possibility.

Well i saw on atomic rockets, that the analogy mos...

2012-01-27T00:12:13.772-08:00
Well i saw on atomic rockets, that the analogy most close to aircraft carrier is the mothership, a gargantuan ship with own biosphere, gravity, it can house a small fleet, and a layer of parasites.

About point 3, if you just want to erase an army, you can bomb from orbit, but what about urban warfare?
In that case, scattering beams and collateral damage from missiles can be too big.

"That will depend on the fine technical details, and I think that any technical performance difference will be washed out by design differences."

Could you explain a bit?
I think about the waste heat treatment.
Yes, a larger vessel can also have big radiator wings to get rid of the waste heat of the engines, but they will be vulnerable.
Otherwise, with not too extended radiators, well, previously, I have asked about the surface to mass ratios.
Also short range vessels have to carry less dead weight.

But is that okay, that a small ship can have bi...

2012-01-26T10:16:11.287-08:00
But is that okay, that a small ship can have bigger sustainable acc than a big one?
That is not an inherent feature of smaller vessels. There is no reason to assume that a small ship will naturally be capable of greater speeds then a big one. That will depend on the fine technical details, and I think that any technical performance difference will be washed out by design differences.

Well I think this is the analogy that can suit the space fighter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_Attack_Craft

I guess asteroid mines are really good places to employ them, they can manufacture and store them in larger shafts, well-protected from enemy artillery.
I've used that exact analogy myself in another venue. However, an FAC is just a modern-day torpedo boat.
I have nothing against short-range, low-endurance craft. My problem is with the proposal to carry them into battle as deployed from ships. The thing most people overlook is that a vessel of this sort can be of any size. I would expect to see Planetary Defense Ships (PDSs) made in most sizes, except the very largest. The best parallel is the Scandinavian coastal defense ships. No doubt Rick can tell us who else used them. Basically, as the design never has to go far from home, it can have a small engine, small tanks, minimal redundancy, and limited quarters (if it has those at all).

Okay so you say point 2 isnt bad.
What do you think about a hypersonic skyhook, that would lift something from stratosphere to orbit? Of course, provided that something above have the necessary power output and enough time to lift?
I'm uncertain about the technical feasibility of the concept in general, but in this case, it's useless. A skyhook is going to be immobile, and that makes it an easy target. As the invader, I'd announce that, out of the goodness of my heart, I would leave it intact so long as they didn't use it. And have a missile attached to the center of it in case they did.

I would like to add to point 3, that they could employ energy cannons /in wavelengths that is good for air/ so they might be cheaper than precise missile attacks.
Maybe. My problem with these sort of arguments is that they typically ignore the fighter loss rates. While missiles are expensive, fighters are even more so, and are likely to be launching marginally less expensive missiles of their own. Beams seem like a good idea, but if the target was vulnerable to beams, you could shoot it from orbit just as easily.

Otherwise yes invading an enemy planet is similar to say that Somalia launches its troops to occupy Sweden...
If you want to just succumb them, you might only want to launch missile barrages against their cities, than say : Ok where we, yeah what is about the export prices?
The general solution to a trade war is a blockade, which, under PMF, is ridiculously easy to enforce. I'm sure there are sever discussions on it floating around. Check space warfare 13-15, I know there's one there.
The exact difficulty of invading a planet is highly dependent on a host of technical details. That was space warfare 12. Space Warfare 1 had some related discussion on bombardment and planetary defenses.

Otherwise yes invading an enemy planet is similar ...

2012-01-26T09:28:42.532-08:00
Otherwise yes invading an enemy planet is similar to say that Somalia launches its troops to occupy Sweden...
If you want to just succumb them, you might only want to launch missile barrages against their cities, than say : Ok where we, yeah what is about the export prices?

That could turn the entire interplanetary war concept into the realm of space operas, it is easier if you have warp drives.

I guess there wil be rather small regional conflicts over an asteroid mine, and/or between different syndicates.
Neutral parties could be among them, so you ll need decision making not just shoot everything in sight.

(A small return to Hollywood films, if you want to be realistic, you need many many cuts to cover the ranges and flight paths, times. That would be irritating after a while. Of course, they could still note, there are no aerodynamics in space... Yes such things emberasses me also.)

Byron : Well, we can agree that the aircraft car...

2012-01-26T09:04:38.807-08:00
Byron :

Well, we can agree that the aircraft carrier analogy is bad.
/In BSG it might justificable, that they wanted to keep out their precious big one out of most fights. Of course, the main reason is to include younger warrior types above older captains and leaders./

But is that okay, that a small ship can have bigger sustainable acc than a big one?

Well I think this is the analogy that can suit the space fighter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_Attack_Craft

I guess asteroid mines are really good places to employ them, they can manufacture and store them in larger shafts, well-protected from enemy artillery.
And ok, if you have enough tanks, you dont employ mobile infantry instead of them. /I think that is the analogy of fighter dragging, as they dont sink in storms./

Okay so you say point 2 isnt bad.
What do you think about a hypersonic skyhook, that would lift something from stratosphere to orbit? Of course, provided that something above have the necessary power output and enough time to lift?

I would like to add to point 3, that they could employ energy cannons /in wavelengths that is good for air/ so they might be cheaper than precise missile attacks.

TOM: Well I still think, after the last exampl...

2012-01-24T16:57:06.474-08:00
TOM:
Well I still think, after the last example, that although you are right, they cant just vanish the waste heat of a fully blazing engine, they still grant small ships a bigger sustainable acceleration, (they can overheat them, even small percentages that erodes them slowly, can be good by the temparature^4 factor ) and a weak spot for big ones.
I've thought of that. The problem is that if you're already radiating 98% of your waste heat, why not pay the little bit extra for that last 2%? The performance falloff is minor, and it's one less thing for you to worry about. I'm not sure erosion is connected to temperature, and I also question the wisdom of deliberately eroding your engines. Not to say that they'll never need replacing, but having engines that must be replaced multiple times over the course of a cruise strikes me as being potentially a bad idea.

What do you think about specialized aerospace fighters?
A guy told me, they are bullshit, they will be just bad in both environments.
( Yes there are times, when i stick to my opinion, but i didnt want to be offensive, I care about other ones. )
I think that this guy needs to be more open-minded about the concept. It depends on exactly what variety is under discussion, and I can come up with a couple right off the top of my head:
1. Dual-role. A fighter that is built to fight both in the air and in space. I doubt this is a viable idea, and it's probably what he was referring to. The performance penalties for two separate roles are fairly high. This is only if it has to fight in both environments as a matter of course.
2. Ground-launch space. Fighters built to launch from the atmosphere and fight in space. This makes a decent bit of sense, if you have cheap, high-performance SSTOs, or no way of putting up bigger warships (Dyna-Soar). Pop up, fire weapons, return to base on the planet. Doesn't have to fight in an atmosphere. Could work.
3. Space-launch air. Fighters that are dropped into the atmosphere, attack ground targets, and return to ships. I'm more skeptical of these, mostly because I don't see any roles they can do that missiles would not be more effective at. You would need similar or better technology then for number 2.
4. Space-drop air. Fighters dropped into a planet's atmosphere and left there to fight. Used in support of an invasion, presumably. These would be very similar to normal air fighters, with capability for drops (heat shield attachments, vacuum-rated cockpits, etc). Probably required if you decide to invade a planet. Which I don't think is a good idea, but that's another story.

I have rechecked what is written about radiators. ...

2012-01-24T07:19:47.944-08:00
I have rechecked what is written about radiators.
Well I still think, after the last example, that although you are right, they cant just vanish the waste heat of a fully blazing engine, they still grant small ships a bigger sustainable acceleration, (they can overheat them, even small percentages that erodes them slowly, can be good by the temparature^4 factor ) and a weak spot for big ones.

So they might be useful for some minor support roles, flanking operations.

But again, I admit, your arguments are right. You have written down well why the popular sci-fi image is false, where space fighters seems to be the ultimate strike force.
/Although I wonder, maybe the media of future shall still overpopulize fighters as a symbol of chivalry, and for their role in defending planets, asteroid mines in swarms./
So again, i thank you for having a normal debate, i ve found it constructive.

I would like to have a question.
What do you think about specialized aerospace fighters?
A guy told me, they are bullshit, they will be just bad in both environments.
( Yes there are times, when i stick to my opinion, but i didnt want to be offensive, I care about other ones. )

Comments on Rocketpunk Manifesto: Space Fighters, Not

With lasers you need an approximate range to focus...

Ok, I guess I'm tiresome. :( But i'd like...

Oh I wanted to write something... I still couldnt...

However... I'm still wondering a bit. Okay, we...

Ok, thanks. OFF : About FTL thingy, I could quote...

Well, about your questions, to achieve a small ...

Well, about your questions, to achieve a small CEP...

PMF? Sorry i am not that familiar with theese a...

Sorry, I realized too late I missed something. W...

PMF? Sorry i am not that familiar with theese acro...

So you say, there has to be an irrational setti...

So you say, there has to be an irrational setting,...

TOM: Yes, you can expend theese fighters as mis...

Yes, you can expend theese fighters as missiles if...

There is also the question of whether these smalle...

I found this one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fi...

I think that beamed-power fighters have been discu...

About point 3 : even if you make a planet surrende...

Well i saw on atomic rockets, that the analogy ...

Well i saw on atomic rockets, that the analogy mos...

But is that okay, that a small ship can have bi...

Otherwise yes invading an enemy planet is similar ...

Byron : Well, we can agree that the aircraft car...

TOM: Well I still think, after the last exampl...

I have rechecked what is written about radiators. ...