Radar and far more sensor equipment will be developed in the future, we're getting better at this all the time. Modern jet battles take place at ranges of well over 50 miles. This trend is only going to get larger and the problem with taking down missles is the effectiveness of missles vs. missles. Lasers or energy weapons traveling at the speed of light eliminate this problem and make it easy to shoot down incoming weapons.
The fleet structure of Wing Commander
- Thread starter papachulo10
- Start date
Frosty
a full fledged GF
Well we all know how I feel about everything that comes out of your mouth
I'm only playing Devil's Advocate here anyway. The drive systems, defense/weapons systems used in WC fighters make them a viable option, but there's just as many arguments to say they'd be useless.We don't know enough about how to control a ship in a combat situation in outer space, especially a small ship like a fighter.
And today's RADAR is pretty state of the art. At the beginning of the Gulf War, the Iraqi air-defense system could have shot a housefly out of the sky. The only trouble is that some of our fighters showed up as houseflys on their screens
Death's Head
Spaceman
Fighters are indeed a truly signifcant part of modern and conjectural future warfare.
In the Star Trek Universe, there are indeed fighters. It goes without saying the reason ST insn't focused entirely on warship locations is the series' main goal isn't to promote violence but encourage peaceful solutions problems whenever possible.
Warships do sometimes show up, however. A new cruiser showed up not long ago with fifteen torpedo tubes and several beam-type weapon arrays. The designer also added 3 bays for launch and recovery perhaps dozens of fightercraft. The heavy assault fighter was employed during the war and as expected, were very effective indeed against the lumbaring Cardassian warcruisers. They commonly flew in flights of four ships. Defiant-type escorts battle anything from small raiders to large cruisers. The fact is, small ships do exist, can do considerable damage before being blasted to bits by generally accurate heavy weaponry. Although certified carriers have not been seen, larger ships do and can carry dozens of effective fighter-scale ships.
If a 20 million dollar plane can disable or sink a 200 million dollar or more warship plus several other 20 million dollar escort planes, I'd say that's a competitive advantage worth investing in. That's my view, anyway.
In the Star Trek Universe, there are indeed fighters. It goes without saying the reason ST insn't focused entirely on warship locations is the series' main goal isn't to promote violence but encourage peaceful solutions problems whenever possible.
Warships do sometimes show up, however. A new cruiser showed up not long ago with fifteen torpedo tubes and several beam-type weapon arrays. The designer also added 3 bays for launch and recovery perhaps dozens of fightercraft. The heavy assault fighter was employed during the war and as expected, were very effective indeed against the lumbaring Cardassian warcruisers. They commonly flew in flights of four ships. Defiant-type escorts battle anything from small raiders to large cruisers. The fact is, small ships do exist, can do considerable damage before being blasted to bits by generally accurate heavy weaponry. Although certified carriers have not been seen, larger ships do and can carry dozens of effective fighter-scale ships.
If a 20 million dollar plane can disable or sink a 200 million dollar or more warship plus several other 20 million dollar escort planes, I'd say that's a competitive advantage worth investing in. That's my view, anyway.
Just a question: Which jet battles would these be?
ISTR that the Gulf War battles were fought up close
and personal because of the multiplicity of aircraft that
looked the same on both sides (both sides had Mirages,
for instance). I believe Kosovo sufferred from the same
problem. I could have sworn that Bekaa valley (Isreal
vs. Syria, 1980s) and Yom Kippur were also
fought primarily w/in optical range.
-- Brian P.
PS. A thought: What could a manned fighter accomplish
in deep space in the future (not necessarily the WC
universe) that a drone could not? A drone would be
less expensive to build, have greater acceleration,
and would be less expensive to lose if destroyed.
-- BDP.
Ummm, I don't know what you are talking about but NO dogfights took place during the Gulf War. All kills at least by the US were radar kills. They picked up the enemy aircraft on radar, locked on, and fired away. The poor bastards never even saw the plane that shot them down. The only craft that use anything in the optical range are bombers, because for precision targeting requires a laser lock on the target, unless it is a radar station or something that directly emits somthing for the plane to lock on to. Drone craft would indeed be much more likely also because there is a limit to how much stress a human can take, but far less so for a machine.
Death's Head
Spaceman
There are drones around, but smaller ones probably wouldn't have the AI to fight and fly effectively. Basically, you'd have a capship missile with turrets.
But drones that far in the future should be able to match anything that a human could do. There is not a single bit of reason why a drone ship couldn't match a human ship in battle and win simply because it could easily outmanuever the human ship (Of course, this would make WC really boring)
Frosty
a full fledged GF
I agree totally.
I made sure that when I bought my PC it had a full-tower case so it'd be faster. Those little mid-towers and mini-towers are too slow for me. Ever since I started using the bigger PC, all the enemies in Starcraft have been harder. I'm never gonna go back to that little Gateway I was using before.
Bigger is better!
Death's Head
Spaceman
Vondoom, how do you know in the future humans won't have better reflexes, have better training, and are just all around better fighters?
Where'd you get yours, Frosty? I've been thinking about getting a new one, myself in a few months or so.
Where'd you get yours, Frosty? I've been thinking about getting a new one, myself in a few months or so.
It's simply a matter of biological limits. Computers can already outpace us in so many matter and there is a limit to how fast you can get a human to reach (even after modification). We already have planes that MUST have computer controls to fly. It's just a matter of how much a human can do.
Did any of you played a game call "Critical Mission"?
Well I have, it´s a adventure game but there is a fase that we have to use drones fighters.
Drones are fine but they cannot makes radical decisions on their on, If condicions in the Battle chance they can never adapt as easy as a human can.A human can always defeat a Drone, because we can change our fighting tecnics, a drone will follow its program to the letter, not being capable of improvise on the spot like a human can, its our versibilaty that makes us a more dificult oponent.
And Radars of today are not 100% efective, remenber the vietman war? the US goes to war with planes that have no guns, only missiles because the teorie now sayed that combats would be decided by missiles only, guns were usuless.Well missiles did not work will the "teorie" said and guns were reistall in almost every US Airplane.
Gun controled by computers and missiles are never 100% efective, they have at best 70% efective in computer generate senarios, they have so far never being use in combat situations that put the ships in any danger, actualy they have. The maldivas conflit and the royal navy lost a destroyer with that tecnology to a small fighter fighter with a anti-ship missile.
It always work in teorie but it will work in the real condicions? almost never as well as expectade.
Well I have, it´s a adventure game but there is a fase that we have to use drones fighters.
Drones are fine but they cannot makes radical decisions on their on, If condicions in the Battle chance they can never adapt as easy as a human can.A human can always defeat a Drone, because we can change our fighting tecnics, a drone will follow its program to the letter, not being capable of improvise on the spot like a human can, its our versibilaty that makes us a more dificult oponent.
And Radars of today are not 100% efective, remenber the vietman war? the US goes to war with planes that have no guns, only missiles because the teorie now sayed that combats would be decided by missiles only, guns were usuless.Well missiles did not work will the "teorie" said and guns were reistall in almost every US Airplane.
Gun controled by computers and missiles are never 100% efective, they have at best 70% efective in computer generate senarios, they have so far never being use in combat situations that put the ships in any danger, actualy they have. The maldivas conflit and the royal navy lost a destroyer with that tecnology to a small fighter fighter with a anti-ship missile.
It always work in teorie but it will work in the real condicions? almost never as well as expectade.
Please, Please Dragon, just look over your posts to at least clear up the glaring typos. And depending on how far in the future you are talking about you are right. Right now, drones are limited to spy work, but I was more talking about around WC time, which is 700 years from now. There are only so many things a person in a craft can do (a simplified example is chess, there are only so many moves possible - and they have finally beat the best Grandmasters in the world) that a computer could easily handle every single varible. The one area where this gets iffy is cost. Would making a computer that advanced 700 years from now be more cost effective than putting in a human pilot? No way to know that one. Also I said, Radar and other sensor technologies. Just as there are new ways to beat old technologies, there will be newer ways to beat those new defenses. Let me tell you this, right after the first Stealth Bomber was proven to work, the next thing they probably did was develop ways to detect them. Cause if we have them, sooner or later the enemy will too.
"critical Mission" is on the future, the drones have AI, we just use a experimental type of advance control that by use of a new type of drug (that kill the user) that we use to give order to the drones.try to play in HARD dificulty and see what the AI can do.
If you dont played the game, you cannot know what I am talking about.
And please leave my typos alone, this does not have spell cheack you know.
If you dont played the game, you cannot know what I am talking about.
And please leave my typos alone, this does not have spell cheack you know.
Ah, see, you're confusing a game with reality. A computer games AI is only as good as its programmers make it, and considering computer games AI, most of them suck. Very few games have good enough AI because on the harder levels it doesn't change anything most of the time except to make you weaker and the computer stronger, the AI stays the same. I know btw that this does not have a spell checker. Just reread what you have typed and fix anything that is glaring (like the physics being spelled fisics). Its not an insult or anything, I'm a pretty bad typist myself. Just double check it is all.
papachulo10
Spaceman
Thanks for the feedback!
Thanks for the feedback. But a couple of issues kinda made me think. First, the main reason why the Iraqi radar was innefective was because it was perdominantly ground based. Apaches, F-16's, Jaguares (pardon my spelling please), tomahawks, and a multitude of other aircraft and missles took them out within the first few days. And since the Iraqi's did not have any AWACS or airborn radar systems their fighters were rendered completly useless. Actually there were some dogfights in the Gulf War. Saudi F-15 went head to head with Iraqi migs. Second, like someone said before me a fighter is a lot cheaper to build and a lot cheaper to outfit than a whole crusier. The Falklands war is a great example. The puny fighters armed with Exocets brought the British army to its knees and they would of lost if the Americans had not provided intelligence to the Brits to tell them where the airbases were. Third, nothing beats a human. Never in a million years will a computer be able to match the power of a human. A computer does what it is programed to do. If it is told to be kicked in the butt a million times it will do it cuase it is programed to. It does not learn. ANd even if AI is ever developed, which it is on the a deep space probe, it will never match the full potential of a human brain. A human uses only 10% of its brain and we have created all of this technology. Imagine how we will be in the future,(that will be a couple of thousands of years, evolution is slow). And the thing about computer tracked guns, although they help, nothing beats the standard Mark I eyeball. That will never break down. One more thing the "smart weapons" of the Gulf War were only smart 40% of the time. CNN only showed you the hits. There were a lot of misses!
Thanks for the feedback. But a couple of issues kinda made me think. First, the main reason why the Iraqi radar was innefective was because it was perdominantly ground based. Apaches, F-16's, Jaguares (pardon my spelling please), tomahawks, and a multitude of other aircraft and missles took them out within the first few days. And since the Iraqi's did not have any AWACS or airborn radar systems their fighters were rendered completly useless. Actually there were some dogfights in the Gulf War. Saudi F-15 went head to head with Iraqi migs. Second, like someone said before me a fighter is a lot cheaper to build and a lot cheaper to outfit than a whole crusier. The Falklands war is a great example. The puny fighters armed with Exocets brought the British army to its knees and they would of lost if the Americans had not provided intelligence to the Brits to tell them where the airbases were. Third, nothing beats a human. Never in a million years will a computer be able to match the power of a human. A computer does what it is programed to do. If it is told to be kicked in the butt a million times it will do it cuase it is programed to. It does not learn. ANd even if AI is ever developed, which it is on the a deep space probe, it will never match the full potential of a human brain. A human uses only 10% of its brain and we have created all of this technology. Imagine how we will be in the future,(that will be a couple of thousands of years, evolution is slow). And the thing about computer tracked guns, although they help, nothing beats the standard Mark I eyeball. That will never break down. One more thing the "smart weapons" of the Gulf War were only smart 40% of the time. CNN only showed you the hits. There were a lot of misses!
OriginalPhoenix
Professor Emeritus
This is absolute and complete rubbish. "Dogfighting" does not necessarily mean guns range, twisting and turning.
While this type of true "dogfighting" was minimal in the Gulf War, most engagements were NOT BVR (Beyond Visual Range). In particular, kills made with the AIM-9 Sidewinder could NOT have been BVR, since it's a heat-seeking missile (no radar), with a range of only a few miles. There was also the case of Capt. Rodriquez, who got credit for a MiG-29 kill when his adversary flew into the ground -- no weapon at all used there, and the Iraqi certainly wouldn't have flown into the ground if he didn't see the F-15.
Falklands War
I think you are severly mistaken. Great britain was not saved by USA intelligence, if anything, the USA held back Britain from making an easier victory, by preventing Britain from sinking the carrier group that was out launching aircraft past the British picket lines., which is why we had to sink the Belgrano, an ageing ship form the Seocnd world war, completly useless, while allowing the two Brand new Type 44 destroyers escorting her to get away. The U.S wanted Argentina as a useful anti-communist force in South America, meaning that the U.S would give Britain no information to take out the useful airbases.
See?
I think you are severly mistaken. Great britain was not saved by USA intelligence, if anything, the USA held back Britain from making an easier victory, by preventing Britain from sinking the carrier group that was out launching aircraft past the British picket lines., which is why we had to sink the Belgrano, an ageing ship form the Seocnd world war, completly useless, while allowing the two Brand new Type 44 destroyers escorting her to get away. The U.S wanted Argentina as a useful anti-communist force in South America, meaning that the U.S would give Britain no information to take out the useful airbases.
See?
Iraqi radar was ineffective because CIA operatives implanted a virus into the computer control systems. And the few true Robots now can react to changes in their environment, that aren't preprogramed. In 700 years they should have the adaptablitiy of a human. Hell, according to scientists by 2030 we will have a robot brain that is better than a human brain in every regard.
Yes, and guess what? 100 years ago there were no smart weapons. Nothing beats a human hunh? Tell that to Deep Blue. We are only beginning to truly develop computer technology and we already have developed computer AI (that truly learns and adapts itself - granted on a scale far less than a dog even). And the mark One eyeball can't hit what it can't see. Meanwhile we have missiles that can hit anywhere in the world WITHOUT someone seeing the target. Will computers ever become more inventive or creative than humans? Almost certainly not, but who knows. I do know that they are getting better at things that no human can match. A computer can react far faster than a human can and do more things at once than a human can. Also, a sidewinder has a range of nine miles but we have air to air missles with ranges of over 100 miles.