Author Topic: Newtonian Fighters  (Read 28378 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline UnLimiTeD

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • U
  • Posts: 1108
  • Thanked: 1 times
Re: Newtonian Fighters
« Reply #75 on: November 10, 2011, 05:39:48 PM »
Given they are just hard points with tinfoil cover, I'd say they'd probably be that much in size, but less in weight.
Thats something different now, isn't it?
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Aurora Designer
  • Star Marshal
  • S
  • Posts: 11649
  • Thanked: 20350 times
Re: Newtonian Fighters
« Reply #76 on: November 11, 2011, 09:20:30 AM »
Given they are just hard points with tinfoil cover, I'd say they'd probably be that much in size, but less in weight.
Thats something different now, isn't it?

When I think of box launchers, I am visualizing enclosed launchers on a warship, rather than hardpoints on a fighter. For example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SS-N-12_Sandbox_surface-to-surface_missiles.JPEG

Steve
 

Offline UnLimiTeD

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • U
  • Posts: 1108
  • Thanked: 1 times
Re: Newtonian Fighters
« Reply #77 on: November 11, 2011, 12:54:12 PM »
Those don't necessarily look like 2x the missiles weight.
 

Offline bean

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • b
  • Posts: 916
  • Thanked: 56 times
Re: Newtonian Fighters
« Reply #78 on: November 24, 2011, 02:15:32 AM »
Sorry to drag this thread out of the dustbin.  I found here: http://www.hnsa.org/doc/pt/doctrine/part1.htm#pg8 in paragraph 1204:
Quote
Employed in tactical units of relatively large numerical strength, the motor torpedo boat squadron becomes a powerful offensive weapon. These squadrons may operate from a fleet base or from the motor torpedo boat carrier. It has been considered feasible to develop a carrier by which squadrons of MTB's could be carried, launched and recovered at sea.
A quick google turns up three separate results.  One is the manual mentioned above, but no mention of farther US pursuit.  Another is a British patent.  The third is a German submarine.  All seem to have not gotten very far.
This is Excel-in-Space, not Wing Commander - Rastaman
 

Offline Elouda

  • Gold Supporter
  • Lieutenant
  • *****
  • Posts: 194
  • Thanked: 21 times
  • Gold Supporter Gold Supporter : Support the forums with a Gold subscription
    2020 Supporter 2020 Supporter : Donate for 2020
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
    2022 Supporter 2022 Supporter : Donate for 2022
Re: Newtonian Fighters
« Reply #79 on: November 24, 2011, 05:27:54 AM »


Terrain in which FACs/MTBs and blue water vessels operate is drastically different. Not so for space fighters, which share a medium with their mothership.
 

Offline TheDeadlyShoe

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1264
  • Thanked: 58 times
  • Dance Commander
Re: Newtonian Fighters
« Reply #80 on: November 24, 2011, 06:59:07 AM »
@Unlimited - it's never just the box, it's the mounting and structural reinforcement.
 

Offline UnLimiTeD

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • U
  • Posts: 1108
  • Thanked: 1 times
Re: Newtonian Fighters
« Reply #81 on: November 24, 2011, 09:26:01 AM »
Thats the point, you don't need the box, you only need a mount strong enough to withstand the fighters acceleration.
But I agree with Elouda, and the picture he posted.
I've long given up on the missiles, and that fighters are unlikely to work has also been established.
 

Offline bean

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • b
  • Posts: 916
  • Thanked: 56 times
Re: Newtonian Fighters
« Reply #82 on: November 24, 2011, 10:40:42 AM »

Terrain in which FACs/MTBs and blue water vessels operate is drastically different. Not so for space fighters, which share a medium with their mothership.
This was not a case of "I told you so", it was merely historical interest.  This was seriously contemplated enough to be added to US doctrine.
This is Excel-in-Space, not Wing Commander - Rastaman
 

Offline UnLimiTeD

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • U
  • Posts: 1108
  • Thanked: 1 times
Re: Newtonian Fighters
« Reply #83 on: November 24, 2011, 01:32:03 PM »
Torpedo boats worked at the time of the first ironclads.
Though, mainly, the boats sort of were the torpedo.
 

Offline PTTG

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • Posts: 125
Re: Newtonian Fighters
« Reply #84 on: December 02, 2011, 11:23:47 AM »
I haven't even thought about atmospheres yet :) but this is an interesting idea. I wouldn't restrict it to small craft but allow a general rule for making a spacecraft atmosphere-capable. I imagine it would more commonly used for smaller craft such as fighters though.

Steve

Makes sense that it would be far cheaper to make a very small craft fly, even as a percentage of initial cost. Although I guess you'd need two definitions- there's stuff like an areospace fighter, or the Space Shuttle (may she rest in peace), which has areodynamic lift, and stuff like your average frighter or the apollo vessels, which are merely capable of reentry. Both of those sound far better than landing in the ISS, of course.
 

Offline MrAnderson

  • Registered
  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • M
  • Posts: 73
Re: Newtonian Fighters
« Reply #85 on: December 29, 2011, 05:00:51 PM »
Perhaps fighters could try to hit specific components on the ship, where as capital ships could only go so far as to "Shoot at Ship 1" instead of fighters "Shoot at Ship 1's engine".
 

Offline Yonder

  • Registered
  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • Y
  • Posts: 278
Re: Newtonian Fighters
« Reply #86 on: December 29, 2011, 07:57:13 PM »
Perhaps fighters could try to hit specific components on the ship, where as capital ships could only go so far as to "Shoot at Ship 1" instead of fighters "Shoot at Ship 1's engine".

I think that we are trying to avoid hard and arbitrary cutoffs for abilities of different ship masses.
 

Offline bean

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • b
  • Posts: 916
  • Thanked: 56 times
Re: Newtonian Fighters
« Reply #87 on: December 30, 2011, 01:36:33 PM »
Seconded.  I'm skeptical of sniping, particularly as Steve has abstracted facing out of the game.  If we did have facings, then it would make more sense.  After all, you can't shoot at the engine of a ship that's pointing towards you.
This is Excel-in-Space, not Wing Commander - Rastaman
 

Offline Mormota

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • M
  • Posts: 62
Re: Newtonian Fighters
« Reply #88 on: December 30, 2011, 01:49:44 PM »
Yes you can. We're in space, you know. Engines on all sides. Or at least, that's how it should be.
 

Offline bean

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • b
  • Posts: 916
  • Thanked: 56 times
Re: Newtonian Fighters
« Reply #89 on: December 30, 2011, 06:30:13 PM »
No, that's not right.  While it theoretically works, economies of scale and simple engineering dictate that a ship will have one set of main thrusters.  We see that in Aurora today.  And even if you are right, the ship's performance will be largely undegraded until all are gone.
This is Excel-in-Space, not Wing Commander - Rastaman