What would you want to find in a fighter?
- Thread starter dacis2
- Start date
Originally posted by Wulf
Did I say that fighter escorts would be substitutes? No, so quit assuming and making poor arguments. Of course they would still need escorts, but the escorting would be a lot easier.
Depends on what technology becomes available ... However, fighters could be made obsolete by capital ships if the following happens:
1. Capital ship defenses become too powerful to be knocked down easily by fighters (these need not be simply shields -- there would also be dedicated anti-torpedo laser turrets, jammers, and what not).
2. Capital ships develop the ability to routinely massacre fighters. (Imagine a miniature version of the Fleet Plasma from WCP that has rapid refire and will destroy an entire formation if detonated in the middle of it -- or imagine a beam weapon which would totally destroy a fighter with a single shot that has the refire rate and accuracy of a laser).
This would put us in the position of sailing vessels of the 1800s, where single capital ships of the frigate class routinely took on hundreds of smaller, less capable ships (junks, galleys, and whatnot) and demolished them all.
After all, there's no reason to assume that space combat in the WC universe will follow the WWII model for all time, is there?
Respectfully,
Brian P.
TC
SubCrid
Both of those situations existed in the Wing Commander universe before the Kilrathi war. Fighters were basically useless against capital ship forces, and were slaughtered by them. Fighters were used for various reasons, they just weren't the keystone of the fighting force that they became after the introduction of the shield penetrating torp in AS.
TC
TC
Raptor: Theoretically there's nothing wrong with the concept of self defending bombers. Combine a B-2's stealthiness with the ability to launch AIM-54 Phoenix or the European Meteor missile and you'd have a bomber that would be untouchable. But then again Dale Brown's a bomber puke through and through and we all know how theories work out in real life...
PS: Which of his books do you think is the best? I personally favor The Tin Man (gotta love BERP
).
PS: Which of his books do you think is the best? I personally favor The Tin Man (gotta love BERP
).He's right
Look at the old B17, covered with 12,7 mm MG's, but it still needed escort.
And the gun turrets would be mainly in use for fending of interceptors during the torpedo run.
Originally posted by Wulf
Did I say that fighter escorts would be substitutes? No, so quit assuming and making poor arguments. Of course they would still need escorts, but the escorting would be a lot easier.
Look at the old B17, covered with 12,7 mm MG's, but it still needed escort.
And the gun turrets would be mainly in use for fending of interceptors during the torpedo run.
Re: He's right
Don't forget that part of the problem was the primitive technology at the time:
1. No computer or radar-guided weaponry -- all weapons were fired by human gunners using optical sights. This results in a great deal of inaccuracy, as it isn't as easy to hit a near-subsonic aircraft flashing across your point of view as you might think.
2. No real way of communicating between the turrets -- each gunner could only see his own sector and had to rely on excited shouts from his colleagues to tell him what was going on elsewhere. No one had a clear picture of what was going on around the bomber.
If we were to do the same thing today, it might be a lot easier -- use an AEGIS-style radar / computer setup to give a clear comprehensive view of the space around the aircraft, and allow the system to remotely control and coordinate the turrets. Accuracy would probably increase and make it much more difficult to attack the aircraft with guns only.
Respectfully,
Brian P.
Don't forget that part of the problem was the primitive technology at the time:
1. No computer or radar-guided weaponry -- all weapons were fired by human gunners using optical sights. This results in a great deal of inaccuracy, as it isn't as easy to hit a near-subsonic aircraft flashing across your point of view as you might think.
2. No real way of communicating between the turrets -- each gunner could only see his own sector and had to rely on excited shouts from his colleagues to tell him what was going on elsewhere. No one had a clear picture of what was going on around the bomber.
If we were to do the same thing today, it might be a lot easier -- use an AEGIS-style radar / computer setup to give a clear comprehensive view of the space around the aircraft, and allow the system to remotely control and coordinate the turrets. Accuracy would probably increase and make it much more difficult to attack the aircraft with guns only.
Respectfully,
Brian P.
Bandit LOAF
Long Live the Confederation!
That sounds just like the turrets in a WC bomber, though.
Wulf
Vice Admiral
I am sure that by the time the 27th century rolls around, turrets will be unmanned and use it's own sensors to calculate a firing solution, like the ZSU-23 or the B-52 Stratofortresse's Vulcan turret. Having these in the game would of course take an element of fun out, maybe, so the developement team left them manned.
Raptor: IMHO Dale Brown's biggest problem is he gets carried away. Really carried away. But he does come up with some neat concepts like the Screamer drone and the TACIT RAINBOW.
pendell: An AEGIS type system would be great for coordinating turrets. However your last sentence doesn't seem to account for the fact that missiles are now the preferred means of downing bombers. Examples like AIM-54 Phoenix, SM-2MR Standard (fitted to Ticonderoga Aegis cruisers) and WC's own Swarmer missiles.
Wulf: Computerized turrets wouldn't necessarily reduce WC's fun factor.
pendell: An AEGIS type system would be great for coordinating turrets. However your last sentence doesn't seem to account for the fact that missiles are now the preferred means of downing bombers. Examples like AIM-54 Phoenix, SM-2MR Standard (fitted to Ticonderoga Aegis cruisers) and WC's own Swarmer missiles.
Wulf: Computerized turrets wouldn't necessarily reduce WC's fun factor.
calculating a firing solution is kinda unreliable. its just like firing at the ITTS diamond. unless you can predict how the enemy turns your shots would probably miss, of course unless its the phaser type weapons in "STAR TREK" which for some reason NEVER miss.
makes me wonder why they still bother doing evasives if the enemy cant miss
makes me wonder why they still bother doing evasives if the enemy cant miss
Originally posted by dacis2
calculating a firing solution is kinda unreliable. its just like firing at the ITTS diamond. unless you can predict how the enemy turns your shots would probably miss, of course unless its the phaser type weapons in "STAR TREK" which for some reason NEVER miss.
makes me wonder why they still bother doing evasives if the enemy cant miss
I guess you could say you're comparing the difference between the beam weapon in Starlancer (which never missed, and killed a fighter in one shot), and the beam weapons in Freespace 2 (which had anti-cap and fighter versions, and even the latter miss a lot).
And evasion still throws off the torpedoes and disruptor bolts in Star Trek.
Thymerlord
Rear Admiral
Did'nt you know in Star Trek all Phaser gunners are perfect shots or at least it seems that way. I would most like a fighter to have good guns, good shields,great missles, and a cd player
Thymerlord
Rear Admiral
A very fine battle indeed and what villian Khan was.
Oggy
Rear Admiral
I like the way Kirk got him, i always wondered why no one ever moved in the Z plane rather than just X and Y
BTW: what were the nebulas supposed to do to you in WCIII?, I remember Eisen saying something about "dangers to overcome" in them, but I never noticed any change in the flight model
PopsiclePete
Mission programmer
Originally posted by Oggy
BTW: what were the nebulas supposed to do to you in WCIII?, I remember Eisen saying something about "dangers to overcome" in them, but I never noticed any change in the flight model
Reduced visibility, iirc. I also think you couldn't get missle locks as far out, but since firing them from ffar off is usally a waste anyhow...