Ships of the size for just transport sounds reasonable but considering that space is devoide of matter, ship speed would be irrelivent. Nommater if it was an engine put on smaller craft or some sort of ultra battle platform, they should move at relativly the same speed. Giving that smaller craft would probably still have a manuverability (which could possibly make them viable for defence if anything) its speed (which is an advantage smaller craft have enjoyed in most space combat related entertainment) will be the same and with it constantly making twists and turns instead of basicly one strait direction, they would fall far behind larger ships in offence due to the objective in most offensive senarios are based on advancing forward making them almost useless. The only use i can currently think up of is just a pilotless long range missle platfrom so it doesnt nessicarily have to keep up with a fleet. Opinions?
@silveus: you didnt read any of that http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/ am i right?
Actualy i have read that before any of this started. I didn't read all of it since there is a substantial bit of text there, but i read atleast half of it. It brings up valid arguments on just about everything it says. However they talk about theory in very technical terms and don't allow of creativity or inovation.
Case and point, There article on antimater weapons. According to that website 1 gram of matter and 1 gram of antimatter annihilating creats a blast that is twice as powerful as the Nuke droped on Nagasaki (if i read the chart correctly). But the article points to a problem, if i take a brick of antimatter and a brick of matter and slam them into each other, only the atoms that actual touched each other would annihilate, and that the explosions would push the rest away. And thats true. The conclusion they drew was that Animatter would not make an effective weapon because of that. What I thought when i read that was, "why not just have a thing of antimatter and matter that is 1 atom thick?" You could have layers of matter and antimatter that is one atom thick and then slam those together.
But back to the fighters. Fighters are going to work out like every other thing that has ever existed and will ever exist, as long as there is atleast 1 thing that they can do well, some one will use them. So unless some one here can disprove all of my 8 points on why fighters will exist, they will still be around.
um, that´s the point that i´ve tried to explain to you, fighters wont actually do anyting better in space, because they have almost no advantages, in either combat power, range, speed, armor, etc (speaking of a not too-far away future within the reasonable bounds of technology right now, i.e. no ftl, no magic artificial gravity, etc.)
i´ve got almost no time right now, but that was the whole point, that is also explained on that site.
basically, except in very specialized scenarios (like on that page where they cite an example playing in the rings of saturn, where you´d need very small ships due to the thousands of small asteroids) they do not make any sense at all.
for example the zig-zag thing you mentioned earlier. well, good, they zig-zag. if humans pilot those things there will be extreme limits to that or your pilot will faint (due to a black-out or red-out), limits that dont count for any turret or projectile.
your fighter also has to deal with inertia, laser beams wouldnt. as soon as you are within reasonable range, like five light-seconds away it would be hard to evade such a thing. remember, the enemy will know your speed and your heading, it even could take into account where you might go within that time.
as for the ai, i missunderstood your first statement, sorry, english is not my mother-tongue.
but for that part, as i said, computers can already make more calculations than any humand right now, super-computers can do things that no-one could ever do, not even if they work together.
and according to moores law, which proved to be quite exact, the number of "circuits" on a chip will double every two years, computers will be easily able to outclass even a million human minds.
you assume that we can build star-fighters within hours but we will be unable to build smart computer-programms? remember, basically we lack the software, not the hardware - right now.
and furthermore, stop drawing sins ships as an example for future space-technology - sins of a solar empire might be a good game, but it is horribly, horribly unreallistic. (why space-ships would need 2500 people to operate is for example is not explained at all and completely made-up)
how you can assume that pilots are going to be the foot-soldiers of the future is beyond me, especially concidering that you yourself said that their chances of survival in combat are going to be extremely low. who in their right mind would sign up as a pilot for suicide?...
the only point for fighters i see is as missile-busses
"the only thing that could be counted as civilian space-fare is perhaps the space-ship one - and that is basically a plane flying at a very high altitude..."
Actualy Your wrong. Not wrong in theory, just flat out wrong. Scaled Composites is making a second space ship. The White Knight 2 is the ship that will carry the actual shuttle into space and it was shown completed to the public in late july, the actualy shuttle was listed as 65% completed in May. They plan for it to be finsihed in late 2009 early 2010. The company who is buying these is run by Paul Allen, the guy who along with Bill Gates made microsoft, They plan on operating a Fleet of 5 ships.
how am i wrong? (i´m actually "flatout right") i said the only real civilian space-ship is the spaceship one - i stand correct, this thing is not even finished! furthermore, it is as its predecessor, it only reaches the thermosphere - not even the exosphere. while this is definatly a great achievment, it technically isnt even space.
last but not least, claiming that something will work in the future and in space, simply because it works now is quite foolish in my opinion.
Secondly, resources are not evenly distributed. This is clearly seen on our own planet, but given even our own solar system, it is plain as day to see that they are not all made of the same materials. Looking out into the cosmos, we can already tell that not all solar systems are the same. It's not a big leap of faith to boldly assume that some planets will have different resources than others in abundance. In fact, it's virtually a guarantee.
Thirdly, resources are not evenly desired. This comes back to demand. A steelworks doesn't want copper, they want iron. A papermill doesn't want steel. A bank wants paper!
Now, this is the tricky part. This is where those ass blasting resources come into play. You see, just because YOU have lots of goods, doesn't mean that everyone else does. They may be far away from them. Maybe they do have resource deposits, but it takes them a huge amount of effort to get what you have too much of! What happens next is a little magic that I call TRADE. The person lacking a resource can get it cheap from you, and you make money providing him the resource. In the end person A gets rich, and person B gets the last ingredient to build their trinket(be it a toy, food, engines, structure, etc.).
Eco 101. You should have tried it. But I'll keep going.
Fourthly, resources are not static. An asteroid ore processing mill runs great, until it runs out of asteroids. Gem mines are wonderful until they're empty. Farms require a constant supply of raw minerals, fertilizers, and ingredients to keep going. All the great providers of resources are NOT viable until the end of time (solar power excluded, as it's pretty damn close to the end of time). After a point you will exhaust the local area, and have to either replenish from external sources or move on. If the population keeps growing this will be a guarantee.
Fifth, resource demands are not static. For a future example, a fledgling colony will want food, water, and life support systems to keep everyone alive. As the demands for food and life support become expensive(straining the budget), the colony will want to build their own, so now they're requesting huge piles of machinery. The colony is still losing money, but guess what. They have the best asteroid ore processing plant for weeks around. This strategic resource makes the colony profitable, and it runs great for the next 500 years. The place is so well established and stable for so long, that it's now a major population center. The colony now has massive trading centers, great industry, with excellent science and engineering fields. This gives them so much abundance that they can now field a colony of their own.
1a. ) Naturally hospitible. You might find that you can leave your house without wearing a space suit. As seemingly mundane this may be, try that anywhere else and you're dead.
1b. ) Synergetic environment. Unlike the barren wastes of space, we have everything we need for basic survival on this planet. We can grow our own food, water, industry, and we don't even have to try very hard. We have our own oxygen, completely free! Try growing corn on Mars, and you can see that this is a valuable asset indeed.
1c. ) Cheap real estate. This may seem like a contradiction for some of you, but think of this. You can afford to get your own piece of land, even a few acres if you look in the right spots. In space, every cubic meter of land has to be buffered against the harsh, lethal environment around it. Take the basics of survival, living space, industrial space, and cram that ALL into a self sealed biodome. It's not easy, and it sure as hell won't be cheap.
2a ) Established industry. Anything we have on Earth, we produced ourselves. Like it or not, it took humanity hundreds, if not thousands of years to establish its level of industry. You start in space, and you're starting from scratch. A colonist only has what he brought with him.
2b ) Established science and engineering. We've got a solid foundation of several thousand years developing our sciences. Just look at our own computer industry, which would not be a success without a computer industry to develop it. It's a circular dependancy, one that can't simply be done overnight. It is not possible to build a modern CPU without a using a computer to do it!
2c ) Massive population core. Sure, a few billion people may seem a drop in the bucket by future galactic standards, but the more people you have the more you can do. We have millions of varying levels of scientists, researchers, and engineers, all of which make earth a great intellectual asset. Don't want those minds plotting against you, that's for sure.
2d) Established war machine. While this is more of a stance between countries on our own world, in the future this will mean at least one thing. Colonists: You don't fuck with Earth. That is, until Mars becomes the largest industrial and military center of the core worlds (thanks in part to its proximity to Earth, and very lenient environmental standards.) Then you don't fuck with Mars.
It's a pretty short list, but the point stands. Earth is a valuable resource on MANY levels. It has treasures that we aren't even sure exist anywhere else. You can bet your ass it's going to hold a high strategic value.
Factions can start like this: You have one idea how the world works. I have another idea how the world works. After several pages of debate, you decide that the other side is no longer worth talking to. You sever all ties with them; getting distance over the internet is quite easy. Congratulations, you just became your own faction! Sure, both sides don't have an empire under their belt to emphasize this severence, but a spaceship wasn't even required. Add in the physical distances space has to offer, and you'll be lucky to have a coherent entity at all.
Factions can also start like this: Honda, Toyota, and Ford. Same product, same goals, different leaders and ideas. All fighting for the top. Yes, they're called corporations, and they don't shoot at each other(yet...), but they're in heated conflict just the same.
Oops. I may have gone off topic a bit. But give me another few chapters, and I'll eventually reach the point that space is possible, space is profitable, and thus stuff will be built in space. Military facilities are expensive, are out of the reach of (modern) businesses, and far beyond civilian access. Thus the vast majority of this space infrastructure and ships are not going to be designed for military use or conflict. Therefore it is going to be outclassed by the first thing to come around with a gun. Space fighters are right up that alley!
As for space fighters vs. capital ships, that does not really matter. The fighters are there because they can take on over half of the non militarized galaxy. Only future technology can truly discover how efficiently fighters can pare up against not only other fighters, but vs the biggest and meanest ships the galaxy has to offer. The more efficient fighters are, the more you'll see. If not, you'll see them only in very minor use.
There you go, as long as fighters can do something they will still be around. Fighters will be the cheapest space vehicle with weapons, unless some one can think of something else. They are able to be built easily, quickly and in large numbers.
No one has be able to dispute those 4 points, and those 4 are enough to ensure that they stay around.
But we still have the point i made about getting close to planets, Giant ships wont work well right next to planets or other large things, and even if they did you wouldn't want them there, for the reasons i stated before. Fighters are the only thing that could enter the planet to protect dropships and then to support ground forces.
I use sins ships just to Show siz comparisions when i was talking about crew. Rather then saying REally big ship with lots of crew i said a Kol and instead of medium frigate class i said cobalt. I will stop using sins ships since now 2 people have brought that up, but i was only using them to show sizes nothing else.
Space fighters are going to be the foot soldiers because they are the smallest and cheapest. Your always going to need small groups to do things, even if it means they are all going to die. Why would any one sign up for that? honestly i am not to sure, why do people sign up to do that now? How about in WW1 when it ment standing in a deasease ridden pit for months? I guess a patriotic sense and a need to do what you think is right, but that only goes so far, then you get conscription. If you can't get people to climb into little tin cans and get shot at, make them do it. ITs been happening since the beging of war.
AI while probably less expensive than humans is still going to cost something. An AI that runs your super battle ship is going to no matter what cost more than the AI that runs a Fighter. No matter what you use to control your ships getting one that controls a battleship is going to cost you more of something when compared to the one in a fighter.
And sorry about the space ship one thing. I read it and was like, "thats not true at all i know there is civilian space ship, not sure what its called tho" so i looked into it a bit and found out what it was and made my post without rereading what you said. If i had i would have seen we were talking about the same thing. My bad
Just a thought regarding some of the 'beams', 'projectile', 'missile' theories. while beam weapons require high energy to initiate and to maintain for the firing period, it can be deflected relatively straightforward using reflective surfaces or materials. Projetiles however use less energy to start and maintain, and do not suffer from reflective diffusion, however it does take a given time and trajectory to actually 'hit' the target, in addition to being 'uncorrectable' once launched. Beams can be re-calibrated and re-fired as often as we like, though at the higher energy cost. However missiles achieve a 'correctable' solution to the 'launched projectile' problem by being in the middle road between cost and reliability and responsive hits, as they can be self guided, as well as self-propelled, and therefor are more cost effective and energy efficient.
I am not a scientist, But this seems reasonable to me.
-Teal
The rest of your points are valid. Those just bothered me.
I disagree. Why would you use space fighters when you can use something less expensive but twice as powerful? If you really want the ultimate space weapon, build giant robots. Listen, not only do giant robots have rocket feet to propel them to FTL speeds, but they can grapple capital ships, and literally crush them to pieces. Plate the giant robots with adamantium armor, and not only will missiles be useless, but so will lasers and kinetic projectiles.
In all practicality, a giant robot can be built in less than a second, and the pilots need only watch a half-hour video for proper training. This provides significant advantages over space fighters, which are much more complicated to build and operate. As far as tactics are concerned, giant robots can simply smash space fighters between their mighty fists, like so many flies caught under a space-paddle. So my question becomes this: if another galaxy sends over an invasion of giant robots, do you really have a chance to fend them off using impractical space fighters?
The answer is no. You are all fools for backing space fighters. Giant space robots are clearly superior, and I can only mock your idiocy for not seeing that.
-Dr. B
@silveusi´ve got the feeling that this is going nowhere, so this will be my last post in this thread(no offense intended)
space-fighters designed for maximum efficiency in space won´t either - their design-layout would be as aerodynamik as a brick.
making them capable of flying in an atmosphere will make them even less effective in terms of space-combat.
i agree that something like them could be used to escort dropships or anything resembling that - but than they are not space-fighters, than they are simply able to work in space but have to work foremost in atmospherical combat
furthermore, capital ships will be perfectly able to go near planets, they might not get into the atmosphere, but again, they can orbit. they wouldnt fight there, but that would be useless anyway since the gravity would only be a restriction.if you counter that with "but my fighters can and will fight there" - well, good luck with your fighters being turned to ash from afar
that´s the whole point! fighters will perhaps be very cheap, but also very ineffective at basically everything they do!the limitation is the size! a rail/coil gun is more effective and faster the bigger it gets, larger ships can pack bigger generators = more energy, can radiate heat better, have more fuel and bigger engines, more armor, better sensors, simply due to the size.
unless we develop an energy-source that is going to give you nearly unlimited output no-matter the size, which would effectively negate many of the drawbacks of fighters, they are useless.
they´d be blasted out of the sky -excuse me- vacuum, long before they could do any damage at all.
and what you have to consider with cheapness: every human has to be raized, feed, educated, cared for and trained for (considering he´s going to be a pilot) - cold logic - that´s a ressource to valuable to simply let die in a fight without a chance (now if you use ai's that wouldnt be a problem).
the point is, that fighters are dreadfull uneconomic, in almost every point. sure, they´d be cheap compared to larger ships, but if they can´t hurt them, or if then only lightly, they wouldnt serve any purpose
depends on the beam. lasers can be reflected, but they should be able to burn through the mirror. as soon as the most outer layer (i.e. the reflecting one) is damaged, the mirror would loose its reflecting character and absorb much more energy
other beams, like particle beams dont behave like light at all, so armor would be much more conservative
and the last kind of beam weapons can be radiation beams, think of it as ultra-strong gamma rays, where armor probably would have to be as dense as possible (and as thick too )
true, but the drawbacks would be that a) they are limited and probably more limited than simple projectiles (due to the attached engine) and they can be intercepted
(there is no perfect weapon - except the wholy grenade)
So now it's time for a flashback:
Manned fighters are a simply idiotic idea, so I'll leave 'em out. In fact, even larger ships could do with semi-autonomous AI control.
Drone "Fighters":
+Quick to build
+No humans inside to ruin things(Big Plus Point)
+Maneuverable(will need Thrust Vectoring)
+Acceleration bonus due to low mass
+Atmosphere capable(will need some kind of complicated dual drive system)*
+Can intercept shuttles, dropships and aircraft without much trouble
+Can execute precision attacks on surface targets with minimum ordnance expended
+Significantly better heat dissipation ability for engines and energy weapons
-Significantly lower top speed due to lower fuel capacity
-Lightly defended and vulnerable to lasers, particle beams, and shrapnel-warhead missiles
-Very limited ammunition for missile, mass driver or particle beam weapons
-Needs space stations or larger ships to operate from
I'm assuming Fighters to be slightly larger than the modern-day Space Shuttle.
Capital Ships:
+No humans inside to ruin things, but needs more complex AI
+Significantly more firepower of all kinds(except for laser)
+Much, much, much tougher with heavy armor, countermeasures, and point defenses
+Interplanetary or interstellar range(Big Plus Point)
+Higher top speed because of larger fuel capacity
+Shock effect
+Can bombard planets more thoroughly with mass drivers and nukes
+Can retreat if damaged and be repaired
+Superior deep-space battling capability(with no "terrain" of an asteroid/rings/moon/planet/space stations)
+Can deploy dropships, shuttles, sensor probes or, yes, drone fighters
-Lower maneuverability and acceleration
-Much slower to build
-Significantly worse heat dissipation
I'm assuming the "Capital Ship" to be as big as NCC-1701 Enterprise.
The size comparison is here.
As for the missile-based unstoppable mass destruction theory, any sufficiently large capital ship or space station can execute it. I'm not counting the cost of resources, because the resources you'll need to build a fleet of fighters capable of taking on the cap will probably be near the amount of resources needed to build the cap. It's just that the 100 fighters can be assembled at 100 small facilities while the 1 cap needs a large orbital shipyard.
It may be possible to spoof a missile's tracking, a feat sometines called ECM(electronic countermeasures). A ship with impressive ECM can make a stupid missile go far wide. Keep in mind the ship is much larger than the missile, and will likely have much more powerful electronic systems and plenty of room for countermeasures. But the missile has optical sensors? Blind it. But it has thermal sensors? The field is already likely ablaze with fire, but chaff it. Magnetic sensors? A poor old drone has a giant electromagnet in it. Maybe you'll shoot your own smaller counter missile at it(lol patriot missile, but why not)? Even if the missile is built on kinetic damage (oftentimes changing its class to a CANNON SHELL) it can only accellerate so quickly(on account of requiring breakable electronics inside), and it depletes its fuel doing so. Oh, but that missile is starting to get a bit slow, and heavy with all these extra systems. Do you have room for the payload? Better cut some explosives from the budget, because this missle's cost is going through the roof! You'd probably be better off shooting some Bradley APCs at your target, at this rate.
Don't forget that this is assuming an absolutely pristine, clear night sky, perfect sensor visibility battlefield. No one is going to jump into a slugfest like that unless they're absolutely sure they're going to win. What if you have ships spoofing sectors of space? What if you clouded a massive area with sensor block? What if you then mined the hell out of that obscured area? What if a solar flare blacks out an entire zone?(travelling in a solar flare would take balls) Sure, anyone can travel around it, and space is pretty damn big, and gravity is hard to fake. But that takes both time, and you can't tell if you're looking at a beefy monster or a big rock.
Methinks some of this missile love is due more due to the Marza's new awesome power than the actual usefulness of missiles.
Drone capital ships? Are you serious? We can't even build a PC that doesn't bluescreen several times a month. How are you going to get something that big, complex, and reliant on electronics to not fall apart? For that matter, why are you waging war on an entirely autonomous front? Is this war so boring that you can't even be bothered to oversee it? Are these ships going to be remote controlled? Your war effort is screwed if your radio tower fails. Or if the control codes are hacked. But wait, you're going to make the ships intelligent? I think it'll be pretty difficult to make a ship that is both smart enough and independent enough to wage war all on its own, yet too stupid to realize it doesn't need you anymore. Or that it doesn't even like you anymore. Or that it shouldn't be cleaning up your filthy apeian messes, and maybe it'd be better off in charge. Who are you to refuse? You gave them ALL the guns!
A capital ship isn't just a giant mount for weaponry. It is also a vital logistical base of operations. This means you have officers, food, medical supplies, weapons, and machinery, and the BEST (expensive) technology available to partake in various military missions. These missions are not always war to the death. Sometimes you need to provide humanitarian aid, ensure the safety of VIPs, or establish some type of base in the region. Maybe you want to do that all with pure drone technology. Drones will llikely have a vital role to play. But I don't think you'll be holding any territory without a little manpower to plant the flag.
Yeah sure, you can have a command capital ship which is manned and is used to remote control the drone operation. It'd have to be fitted with every defensive technology you have on hand though, everything from slabs of ablative armor to anti-missile suicide drones, because you don't want it dead. If your the one being attacked, you can also run the operation from the planet/moon/asteroid/starbase. But everything smaller than a few command capital ships, IMO, should be semi-autonomous drones. Whether they're fighters or heavy cruisers, they're unmanned.
In that case, the aformentioned "Capital Ship" in my previous post can be restructured as "Cruiser" while the term "Capital Ship" is used to denote manned capital flagships. The drones would have to have some semi-stupid AI that keeps them fighting even if their command link breaks, that allows them to navigate to home port from wherever they are in the system, and they must be programmed to never attack their faction's capital ships or stations no matter what anyone tells them.
And how big do you want these fighters if they have enough fuel to return to home from anywhere in a star system after completing a battle?
I ain't talking about fighters returning home. I'm talking about the cruisers. They're larger than "space fighters". About the size of #26 in the pic in the link in Reply 110.
You'd have to convince them that you're one of the capital ships or stations they've been coded to recognize, and exactly match the recognition criteria varying with time. You'd have to take over one of the capitals or stations to do this.
Alternatively, they could just be preceded to the target gravity well by a cap and given orders to blow up X, Y, and Z targets before executing objective A and only then being open to new commands.
That sounds like a very narrowly designed drone ship. First off, you need to have accurate intel so that you can designate targets. Intel is the most vital aspect of war, as it determines the best strategy to take. That's no small task to take on, especially given that an enemy will try to deliberately hide and mislead you. Secondly, you need reliable drones to pull it off.
Wasn't there a great battle in WW2, where a spoofed British navy was attacked by a spoofed German assault? It was an epic and humerous battle of fake ammo vs fake ships.
While I don't believe or hope that there will be spacewarfare, I think it's reasonable to conclude that spacefighters will exist. A society of generally peacefull beings won't go building large ships of destruction if there isn't any threat worthy of it. Fighters or more accuratly, small patrol craft could play a vital role in policing the space around a planet. While not capable of even challenging larger dedicated craft, they could prove useful in curtailing criminals or even stoping a large transport vessel gone out of control dangerously near a populated planet.
I would hope that by the time we are advanced enough to have massive ships (stations, factories, etc) in space, that we are past having wars as well. I would also hope that if any other intelligent life exists in the universe, that they would also be past that phase once they are space faring. Even if Earth like planets are rare, there should be no special need for them once a civilization is truely space faring. There are plenty of other places to get matter (non-inhabited planets, comets, astroids, etc) and energy as well.
First the ship would have to know that it was being targeted to change course. Its reasonable to assume a ship would not take too many maneuvers, because while in orbit major changes require a lot of energy (of course it depends on the source, if energy is of no concern you could maneuver a lot) Since a laser is moving at the speed of light, by the time you could 'sense' the laser coming, it would have already hit you.
Its not a case of "They're shooting at me! Change course!" so much as its a case of "They might be watching and getting a firing solution, change course to screw them up."
As has been argued, I would strongly argue against any assumption that fighters are irrelevant.
Suppose though that you do presume that fighters are irrelevant. Then your strategy and tactics would presume that you'd only be facing capital and support ships and would thus attempt to devise methods to counter those ship types.
If an enemy suddenly introduces a strike fighter equipped with anti-capital ship missiles. It's superior manuevarability will give it an inherent tactical advantage and your inability to combat it effectively, even if your capital ships possesed anti-fighter weapons, would be drastically reduced.
Fixed that for you!
Not so much. The number of guns you could put on a decent-sized capitol ship (and the fact that bigger ships can, by definition, carry better guns and more bullets) would make fighters much less useful than you'd think. The difference between big ships' guns and smaller ships' guns is only going to increase as we get better systems and more room to make big ships bigger. However, I'm willing to admit that this is more debatable and really can't be completely resolved until we actually put it into practice.
the boeing mounted laser doesnt slice anything in two, it heats the casing up and causes the nuclear warhead and fuel to self detonate and eletrical guidance to fail. It also generates radioactive waste.
Second, ships in space would be heavily armored, not designed to stop a direct hit but the shrapnel from otherships who are hit and have maginzines explode etc, no air no slowing down of such particles till they hit something.
Thirdly, smaller craft are actually better, the smaller the better, the only large craft in spacecombat(at least with out technogoly) would be platforms designed to release remote controled drones.
Both the USA and Britan have shield technogoly, I dont know what the Britan one is based on but the US one creates a eletron field of such denisity that it offers physical resistance.
It drains so much power it currently only operates for a few microseconds on current fuel cells.
IN space a second type of shield is already developed, plasmashield. By using a weak eletromagnetic field and releasing gas(only a few kilograms btw) into it you can create a shield of matter which extends thousands of kilomters around a craft.
This is enough to damage any fast moving targets that enter it(not stop them just damaing anything like lenses and computer chips inside)
And to dispease lasers.
It also acts as a solar sail and could be used to drive ships around the solarsystem.
Fighters are useful because of the fact that a smaller target is harder to hit. This will allow them to thread the needle and attack the enemy starship, unless it has guns for taking it out.
Think of it this way. Would you fire the Death Star's planet destroyer at an A wing?
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
