Which fighter type is your favorite?
- Thread starter Delance
- Start date
HammerHead
Rear Admiral
At first glance, you theory didn't look to good, but after comparing it to 20th century fighter-aircraft (specifically F-4E Phanthom, F-15E Eagle, F-16 Fighting Falcon and F-21A Kfir) I think you might Have a point.
Considering the fact that WC fighters are basicaly designed around the same craiteria and mission parameters (diffrent environment, but basicaly the same missions and purpposes) the result souldn't be that diffrent.
There is now reason (and no apparent way) to make an F-15 larger, longer and at the same time, less massive.
(these are all speculations those, as all of this is SciFi afterall)
What this means is that the only time they got it right was WCII. In WCP they tried to fix the sixes, only the mass was still too low.
How can the Vamp, which is half the size of the Excal carry 32 missiles, opposed to 12 and still be a tonne lighter?
Something has to be wrong.
Oh, and its not my theory, it comes from a guy named Hawkeye.
How can the Vamp, which is half the size of the Excal carry 32 missiles, opposed to 12 and still be a tonne lighter?
Something has to be wrong.
Oh, and its not my theory, it comes from a guy named Hawkeye.
I'm thinkin...
Spaceman
There really is no reason to make the F-15 larger. With the introduction of the F-22 Raptor and the experimental JSF (Joint Strike Fighter) older models should in essence be phased out. The JSF, with certain modifications can fill any role, Army, Navy or Marines. In the long run it should save money, rather than trying to modify older fighters to fulfill mission roles.
To answer Haessilich, the JSF is supposed to be made of lighter alloys with some kind of composite skin that will be lighter than traditional metal skin alloys. It will also have micro processors that will allow the skin to change colors with the ground or sky, depending on where you are while looking at it. I'm not sure how it stands up under fire but stealth technologies should help it avoid being shot at in the first place.
HammerHead
Rear Admiral
In about 20 years time, most westren world countries will be flying the JSF.
Either it or old, obsolete fighter aircraft.
It's about the only fightercraft been developed by the western world today.
Haesslich:
miniturization doesn't cut it. you still need a wing span and aerodinamic surfaces to stay airborne.
But WC fighters are space-fighters - they don't need to be aerodinamic - Wrong.
Most, if not all, of WC fighters are atmospheare capable - hence needing a certain wing span and wing area to stay aloft.
And regardless of that - you'll need a place for Radar, sensors, shield generators, Engines, landing caridge, pilot (this is the guy who sits in the cockpit and fly the damn thing).
You'll need room for missile hard points or pylons.
In order to make the guns more useful, you'll need to place them at a certain distance from each other (so a salvo will occupy a larger "volume" of space, thus increasing chances of hit)
and the list goes on...
Aries:
How much can a missile get smaller in 10 years, so you can suddenly carry 4 times as much, especialy after 500 years of evolution?
Haesslich
Spaceman
Actually, the fighters in WC don't always seem to depend on aerodynamic surfaces, though they do include wings for the most part as places to mount hardpoints. A lot seem to use more in the way of their antigrav engines to keep in flight, using the aerodynamic surfaces mostly as a way to maneuver (check End Run during the first Vukar Tag assault).
The size changes in WCP seem to be more a result from miniaturization and the return to a specialized design for most craft; I wouldn't categorize anything like the Wasp or Panther as that aerodynamically sound (they don't have wings that allow for traditional flight).... and they're more 'in line' with the sizes of today's fighters, unlike WC3 or so where fighters are, on average, 30 meters or more (over 90 feet) in length.
Yet now we've got craft in WCP which are smaller and somewhat less massive than their Kilrathi War predecessors... though to make them 'longer, larger, and less massive' would involve either putting in a lot more empty space or using a lot lighter materials for the superstructure and armor, along with engines.
Which I suspect is the case. They've shrunk the fighters as they've discarded the 'jack of all trades' philosophy, to pare them down to basics for the 'make it more cheaply' philosophy... which means you don't have to shove in extra systems which won't likely be needed by that fighter most of the time. The Bearcat in WC4 was the first expression of this idea, being a dedicated dogfighter more than it was a 'true' heavy fighter (kicks anyone's ass, versus just kicks a fighter or bomber's ass).
I see you're piont about wings. However there are flaws here:
1. By WCIII missiles are carried internally.
2. In 9 years you cannot half fighter or component size, not when these craft have been around for 100-200 years. Planes aren't really getting smaller. The F-15 and F-22 are similar size IIRC. Thats 40 years.
3. The HUGE missile armerments and in most cases heavier masses are WRONG. One way or another, it means there are cubic metres of space insisde K-War fighters.
4. Look at the cockpits, on the War Birds poster in WCIII you can see the chairs, those fighters can't be that big or the pilots are 12 feet tall.
Not to mention look at the WCSO Excal, its not twice the size of the Vamp. So they screwed up somehow.
1. By WCIII missiles are carried internally.
2. In 9 years you cannot half fighter or component size, not when these craft have been around for 100-200 years. Planes aren't really getting smaller. The F-15 and F-22 are similar size IIRC. Thats 40 years.
3. The HUGE missile armerments and in most cases heavier masses are WRONG. One way or another, it means there are cubic metres of space insisde K-War fighters.
4. Look at the cockpits, on the War Birds poster in WCIII you can see the chairs, those fighters can't be that big or the pilots are 12 feet tall.
Not to mention look at the WCSO Excal, its not twice the size of the Vamp. So they screwed up somehow.
Haesslich
Spaceman
1. Correct. By WC3, they're generally using internal bays for missile storage. But also note that the fighters are twice the size of their WCP counterparts, and likely have more than double the volume in internal bays, even assuming larger components and systems.
2. Most of the ship designs we saw by WC3-WC4 were actually fairly old designs, but the most recent upgrades (think the change from the original F-15 to the F-15E, or maybe the F/A-18 Super Hornet from the original Hornet, which itself is a little larger than the original Hornet airframe). These fighter designs have been around about 50+ years by this point, versus relatively new designs like the Excalibur, Bearcat, and then the WCP craft.
Also, most of the changes between the F-15 and F/A-22 aren't due to the engines (the technology there is relatively mature, and we haven't made THAT much progress in making engines smaller, though the F/A-22 has more powerful electronics) but rather due to the stealthing technologies and materials incorporated into the design.
3. The F/A-22 has room enough in its centerline bomb bays for 6 AMRAAM missiles, which are about 7" in diameter, each, plus room, though the configuration is staggered. You've already got a few meters of capacity in the internal bomb bays... and if you look at bricks like the Longbow, which had 16 missiles plus 4 torps and 24 missile decoys... well, they've got the volume, or at least some do.
4. The Arrow is described as the only fighter one feels like they're 'strapping on' rather than climbing into, due to its very compact size compared to most WC craft of the timeframe (20 meters or around 60 feet). Note that most of the designs are relatively short, but stretched out as well. I think the War Birds poster people took some artistic license myself, with putting the chairs in the cockpits.
Remember, that's not supposed to be a diagram to be used for more than recognition purposes - everything beyond the major structural details is probably artistic license.HammerHead
Rear Admiral
Funny, I just read End Run and was about to base myself on the same segment in the book to say the opposite.
The book notes that Jason notices as the Fighter's computer starts using the ailerons on the wings, and closes the ramscoops, and that he is making a metal note to watch the fuel level - the fighter must keep burning it's engine to preserve forward movment which in tern is use by the wing to produce lift.
(in space forward movment is not impared as there is no atmosphere - no need for continual burn, except maybe while using ramscoops)
You'r right about the wasp.
About the panther those, arguably, it has a lifting body (like the space shutle) - it is streamlined.
On this point I'll Have to agree with you.
On this point I'll go with BattleDog.
There are way to many missiles on these planes and the only reason I can think of, that made them do the game this way, is that they did it so difficult that they had to give you all these missiles.
I know I never landed before depleting all of my missiles (all the homing ones at least), and was usualy down to single few of them, or even none by my last nav point.
And it's wasn't because I'm trigger happy (I am, but I prefer using my guns and going up close and personal)
And about the Mass issue - It only proves they screwed up all the ships up to prophecy (except for WC2 which is rather reasonable)
HammerHead
Rear Admiral
Hey!
We are having fun here!
DON'T INTERUPT!
Haesslich
Spaceman
Page 118 notes that they switch to the wing control surfaces for maneuvering, not necessarily for lift, which the antigravs provide. Fuel's a constant concern because the ships are designed to use hydrogen collected in space for engine operation (your scoops would drag you to a stop if you didn't have the main drives on, and this is how we maneuver like atmospheric fighters anyways), with reserves left for afterburner usage. Or, to put it more simply, what's the point in having a fighter if it's stationary? Of COURSE you're going to keep the engines on - how are you going to get anywhere otherwise? Magic?
Also, how do you think we slow down after the afterburners cut out? Drag from the scoops. Saves you burning fuel for thrusters... and note that the numbers don't just suddenly drop to the previous cruising speed, but actually go down, on your display.
Remember that several times, he hovers dead in the air to take out ground targets like a Kilrathi medium tank and sweeping out other Kilrathi emplacements.
Well there is conclusive proof that you use antigravs. In startup on WCIII
"Repulsorlifts online"
So there you go.
I still think Mass/Size is reversed. Generally fighters get bigger, not smaller. You start with tiny by-planes and work up to jets.
So since that doesn't happen it suggests all the tech is mature. If missiles are smaller how come the Thud and Excal is SO don't carry more.
I say that in WCI-III-IV size/mass is screwed and in WCP mass is screwed.
"Repulsorlifts online"
So there you go.
I still think Mass/Size is reversed. Generally fighters get bigger, not smaller. You start with tiny by-planes and work up to jets.
So since that doesn't happen it suggests all the tech is mature. If missiles are smaller how come the Thud and Excal is SO don't carry more.
I say that in WCI-III-IV size/mass is screwed and in WCP mass is screwed.