Search Results
6/18/2025, 10:06:54 PM
>>95897378
Moon to Earth is much too short a distance, fighters would be entirely pointless. They NEED to have a long distance.
>only place where space fighters would make sense is in low orbit
Why? You make these wild claims with zero justification.
>pointless in space because their maneuverability and range are both pointless?
Again wild conjecture without any justification. Maneuverability and range are the only things that matter in space combat. If you don't want to engage you can just burn to avoid. If you can burn more than they can or faster than they can you dictate when and where all engagements happen.
>if your only problem is delta-v you just put a slightly bigger fuel tank on the missile
I don't think you have any idea how orbital mechanics work. Especially since you assumed the fighter was going back to base, which is just a ludicrous proposition.
The earlier you burn, the more bang you get for your buck. Thus if you're shooting a missile at Mars from Luna, the target has literally months to get way the fuck out of the way of the missiles. There's simply no way to make a missile with enough fuel to make countless adjustments along the way.
The reason a fighter is worthwhile, is it makes adjustments for ALL the missiles. As it approaches it can opt not to track more than absolutely necessary. Then, when it nears the effective range of the missiles, it can burn rapidly (much faster than the enemy stations/vessels) to reduce the expenditure for all its missiles. You're right that the additional weight of the fighter means this is more fuel, but the important part is how fast it works, and that the missiles stay small.
Once within range of the missiles, it shoots its load and the swarm can achieve coverage of the area the target may be able to burn to, since that area is now MUCH smaller.
I've tried to include a simplified visualization. The point isn't the cost or efficiency; naked missiles win out there. The point is actually hitting.
Moon to Earth is much too short a distance, fighters would be entirely pointless. They NEED to have a long distance.
>only place where space fighters would make sense is in low orbit
Why? You make these wild claims with zero justification.
>pointless in space because their maneuverability and range are both pointless?
Again wild conjecture without any justification. Maneuverability and range are the only things that matter in space combat. If you don't want to engage you can just burn to avoid. If you can burn more than they can or faster than they can you dictate when and where all engagements happen.
>if your only problem is delta-v you just put a slightly bigger fuel tank on the missile
I don't think you have any idea how orbital mechanics work. Especially since you assumed the fighter was going back to base, which is just a ludicrous proposition.
The earlier you burn, the more bang you get for your buck. Thus if you're shooting a missile at Mars from Luna, the target has literally months to get way the fuck out of the way of the missiles. There's simply no way to make a missile with enough fuel to make countless adjustments along the way.
The reason a fighter is worthwhile, is it makes adjustments for ALL the missiles. As it approaches it can opt not to track more than absolutely necessary. Then, when it nears the effective range of the missiles, it can burn rapidly (much faster than the enemy stations/vessels) to reduce the expenditure for all its missiles. You're right that the additional weight of the fighter means this is more fuel, but the important part is how fast it works, and that the missiles stay small.
Once within range of the missiles, it shoots its load and the swarm can achieve coverage of the area the target may be able to burn to, since that area is now MUCH smaller.
I've tried to include a simplified visualization. The point isn't the cost or efficiency; naked missiles win out there. The point is actually hitting.
Page 1