|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 8, 2018 14:26:57 GMT
I recently saw a youtube video where the maker proposed his thinking on the characteristics of the perfect starfighter. one of his key arguments was that instead of being fixed forward firing, the guns should be turret mounted so that the pilot can aim them off axis and to the rear of the fighter.
I am inclined to disagree. I think that having turret mounted guns will divide the pilot's attention between flying the ship and aiming the guns.
so is this something that is testable? is it something the mythbusters - in any format - can safely test? does the advantage of not having to point your fighter to aim your guns offset the disadvantage of then having to both steer AND aim separately?
parameters: this applies to short range direct fire weapons on a single seat craft with presumed weapons and performance parity with other craft.
|
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Oct 8, 2018 14:47:55 GMT
With advanced computerized fire control and heads up display, all a pilot has to do is look at the target and the turret would aim automatically.
|
|
|
|
Post by rmc on Oct 8, 2018 15:05:40 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 8, 2018 16:26:59 GMT
With advanced computerized fire control and heads up display, all a pilot has to do is look at the target and the turret would aim automatically. with contemporary aircraft featuring such systems, it is a gunner who does that. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 8, 2018 16:30:37 GMT
yes, it is quite relevant to the topic. |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Oct 8, 2018 17:19:40 GMT
With advanced computerized fire control and heads up display, all a pilot has to do is look at the target and the turret would aim automatically. with contemporary aircraft featuring such systems, it is a gunner who does that. I would think the "perfect starfighter" would have such a system. If it doesn't, it's not so perfect, now is it. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 8, 2018 17:27:49 GMT
with contemporary aircraft featuring such systems, it is a gunner who does that. I would think the "perfect starfighter" would have such a system. If it doesn't, it's not so perfect, now is it. you mean a gunner? that makes the fighter bigger, heavier, more complex. of course, the question at hand is whether the pilot can divide his attention between flying and aiming with successful results. |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Oct 8, 2018 20:13:45 GMT
I would think the "perfect starfighter" would have such a system. If it doesn't, it's not so perfect, now is it. you mean a gunner? that makes the fighter bigger, heavier, more complex. of course, the question at hand is whether the pilot can divide his attention between flying and aiming with successful results. No, not a gunner. An eye tracking aiming system. |
|
|
|
Post by wvengineer on Oct 8, 2018 21:49:48 GMT
A few questions for you you that will help to determine the outcome. 1. Will this be a single pilot fighter or a team setup? With a single pilot, that really limits their attention span to have to focus of flying as well as targeting, that give extra weight to the fixed gun setup. A team setup has commonly has a pilot and a gunner/bombardier. In that case, a pivot mounted gunner setup is much easier to control. (Think the Gunstar from Last Starfighter*. It has full 360 degree gun coverage.) 2. What are the computer systems like? Especially with scifi universes, unless there is a reason for having a severely limited computer system, a computer can track targets, assess treat levels, assign target priorities, and run the guns to track and take out enemies all around a ship. It actually is one a of pet peeves with a lot of scifi universes. We have the technology today to completely automate gun management. (see Phalanx GIWS**) There should be a good reason why the ships in an technologically advanced society have to have a downgrade when it comes to weapon controls. 3. Is there another reason why the gun has such a setup? The main gun on the A10 Thunderbolt is so big that it can only be aimed by turning the whole plane. I think this is the case for a lot of guns on aircraft today. Guns are normally considered a last resort weapon. So they typically have a single axially mounted cannon. Plans like the F-15, and F-22 had this sort of setup. They primarily rely on missile that can cover the whole aircraft for taking out threats. 4. What are the weapon systems like? How big are they? How complicated is it to move them independently and track targets? * kitsunesden.xyz/SF-Conversions/Rifts-Other-Vehicles/Last_Starfighter_Gunstar_Starfighter.htm** en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_CIWS |
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Oct 8, 2018 22:46:34 GMT
I agree with wvengineer it depends on the technologies involved and how the ships are designed and what role you want them to play.
I currently play the MOM Elite Dangerous form time to time, it's possible to set up ships with several different configurations depending on your style of play forward facing guns, turret guns with a gunners and semi autominous guns that track and fire at designated targets for you.
Rear facing guns that you fire yourself would be difficult the constant need to track both where you are flying in front of you and what you are shooting to the rear at I think would it nigh on impossible,
I play a lot with semiautonomous guns that let me concentrate on flying the ship whilst still allowing damage to enemies.
However there were some aircraft that did have their weapons offset from the direction of travel that had success, German nightfighters in WW2 had guns that pointed uowards that allowed them to attack RAF bombers from below, but they were in a particular fixed postion against slow,moving targets, in a fast moving dogfight I would imagine pretty useless.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 10, 2018 4:43:41 GMT
A few questions for you you that will help to determine the outcome. 1. Will this be a single pilot fighter or a team setup? With a single pilot, that really limits their attention span to have to focus of flying as well as targeting, that give extra weight to the fixed gun setup. A team setup has commonly has a pilot and a gunner/bombardier. In that case, a pivot mounted gunner setup is much easier to control. (Think the Gunstar from Last Starfighter*. It has full 360 degree gun coverage.) 2. What are the computer systems like? Especially with scifi universes, unless there is a reason for having a severely limited computer system, a computer can track targets, assess treat levels, assign target priorities, and run the guns to track and take out enemies all around a ship. It actually is one a of pet peeves with a lot of scifi universes. We have the technology today to completely automate gun management. (see Phalanx GIWS**) There should be a good reason why the ships in an technologically advanced society have to have a downgrade when it comes to weapon controls. 3. Is there another reason why the gun has such a setup? The main gun on the A10 Thunderbolt is so big that it can only be aimed by turning the whole plane. I think this is the case for a lot of guns on aircraft today. Guns are normally considered a last resort weapon. So they typically have a single axially mounted cannon. Plans like the F-15, and F-22 had this sort of setup. They primarily rely on missile that can cover the whole aircraft for taking out threats. 4. What are the weapon systems like? How big are they? How complicated is it to move them independently and track targets? * kitsunesden.xyz/SF-Conversions/Rifts-Other-Vehicles/Last_Starfighter_Gunstar_Starfighter.htm** en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_CIWS1: single seater. 2: let's say AI is not permitted to operate offensive weapons. otherwise, you're not flying a fighter, you're deploying an attack drone. 3: if we assume a gun system that cannot be installed in a turret, then we are kind of cheating, since the biggest question is whether it is easier to aim the gun by aiming the vehicle or aim the gun as a separate task from driving the vehicle. |
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Oct 10, 2018 5:58:15 GMT
A few questions for you you that will help to determine the outcome. 1. Will this be a single pilot fighter or a team setup? With a single pilot, that really limits their attention span to have to focus of flying as well as targeting, that give extra weight to the fixed gun setup. A team setup has commonly has a pilot and a gunner/bombardier. In that case, a pivot mounted gunner setup is much easier to control. (Think the Gunstar from Last Starfighter*. It has full 360 degree gun coverage.) 2. What are the computer systems like? Especially with scifi universes, unless there is a reason for having a severely limited computer system, a computer can track targets, assess treat levels, assign target priorities, and run the guns to track and take out enemies all around a ship. It actually is one a of pet peeves with a lot of scifi universes. We have the technology today to completely automate gun management. (see Phalanx GIWS**) There should be a good reason why the ships in an technologically advanced society have to have a downgrade when it comes to weapon controls. 3. Is there another reason why the gun has such a setup? The main gun on the A10 Thunderbolt is so big that it can only be aimed by turning the whole plane. I think this is the case for a lot of guns on aircraft today. Guns are normally considered a last resort weapon. So they typically have a single axially mounted cannon. Plans like the F-15, and F-22 had this sort of setup. They primarily rely on missile that can cover the whole aircraft for taking out threats. 4. What are the weapon systems like? How big are they? How complicated is it to move them independently and track targets? * kitsunesden.xyz/SF-Conversions/Rifts-Other-Vehicles/Last_Starfighter_Gunstar_Starfighter.htm** en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_CIWS1: single seater. 2: let's say AI is not permitted to operate offensive weapons. otherwise, you're not flying a fighter, you're deploying an attack drone. 3: if we assume a gun system that cannot be installed in a turret, then we are kind of cheating, since the biggest question is whether it is easier to aim the gun by aiming the vehicle or aim the gun as a separate task from driving the vehicle. Can the AI fly the ship while you fire guns? I guess not that would also,break the rules. Like I say Ithink it would be too much for a pilot to do. Although it's only a game, I find that I you concentrate too much on hitting a target your craft becomes too easy to hit it would be too difficult to maintain an awareness of what other opposition is doing around you if you were looking behind you to shot. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 10, 2018 14:00:57 GMT
1: single seater. 2: let's say AI is not permitted to operate offensive weapons. otherwise, you're not flying a fighter, you're deploying an attack drone. 3: if we assume a gun system that cannot be installed in a turret, then we are kind of cheating, since the biggest question is whether it is easier to aim the gun by aiming the vehicle or aim the gun as a separate task from driving the vehicle. Can the AI fly the ship while you fire guns? I guess not that would also,break the rules. Like I say Ithink it would be too much for a pilot to do. Although it's only a game, I find that I you concentrate too much on hitting a target your craft becomes too easy to hit it would be too difficult to maintain an awareness of what other opposition is doing around you if you were looking behind you to shot. that's my thinking as well. so what would make a good testbed assuming there is a TV show to test it on? I was kind of thinking of mobility scooters with paint guns either on a fixed mount or on what is essentially a robot arm |
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Oct 10, 2018 21:43:15 GMT
Can the AI fly the ship while you fire guns? I guess not that would also,break the rules. Like I say Ithink it would be too much for a pilot to do. Although it's only a game, I find that I you concentrate too much on hitting a target your craft becomes too easy to hit it would be too difficult to maintain an awareness of what other opposition is doing around you if you were looking behind you to shot. that's my thinking as well. so what would make a good testbed assuming there is a TV show to test it on? I was kind of thinking of mobility scooters with paint guns either on a fixed mount or on what is essentially a robot arm There was a TV on here last month called Battle oF Britain : Model Squadron where British and German RC modellers used remote control model WW2 aircraft fitted with micro camera and laser tag technology to simulate some of the events of Summmer 1940. This could be adapted fr your purposes trying to hit targets with rear mounted laser tag weapons. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 11, 2018 2:03:40 GMT
that's my thinking as well. so what would make a good testbed assuming there is a TV show to test it on? I was kind of thinking of mobility scooters with paint guns either on a fixed mount or on what is essentially a robot arm There was a TV on here last month called Battle oF Britain : Model Squadron where British and German RC modellers used remote control model WW2 aircraft fitted with micro camera and laser tag technology to simulate some of the events of Summmer 1940. This could be adapted fr your purposes trying to hit targets with rear mounted laser tag weapons. laser tag isn't as messy, though. it occurs to me that having the gun mount respond to the control stick might be a good middle of the road option - though then your gunsight would have to be pretty smart to keep up. (I'm thinking have your gun turret "lead" any turn you are attempting proportionate to how hard you are turning.) |
|
|
|
Post by wvengineer on Oct 11, 2018 23:52:23 GMT
I wonder if you could make a system where the guns are axially mounted, but there is some movement build in, maybe 15 degrees worth in both X & Y axis . That way they basically track with the rest of the craft, but not entirely. You have limited movement to track targets independent of the craft's flight pattern. The idea being that the pilot is able to mostly focus on flying the craft, but has some freedom to track targets that are close to the flight path. This would help to keep their attention on flying.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 12, 2018 2:43:05 GMT
I wonder if you could make a system where the guns are axially mounted, but there is some movement build in, maybe 15 degrees worth in both X & Y axis . That way they basically track with the rest of the craft, but not entirely. You have limited movement to track targets independent of the craft's flight pattern. The idea being that the pilot is able to mostly focus on flying the craft, but has some freedom to track targets that are close to the flight path. This would help to keep their attention on flying. that's sort of what I was thinking, but with them set up so when the pilot initiates a turn, the guns track into the turn. that way the guns can come to bear a little quicker than the craft can turn, but the pilot isn't trying to aim the guns and the craft in different directions at the same time. |
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Oct 12, 2018 6:11:57 GMT
I wonder if you could make a system where the guns are axially mounted, but there is some movement build in, maybe 15 degrees worth in both X & Y axis . That way they basically track with the rest of the craft, but not entirely. You have limited movement to track targets independent of the craft's flight pattern. The idea being that the pilot is able to mostly focus on flying the craft, but has some freedom to track targets that are close to the flight path. This would help to keep their attention on flying. that's sort of what I was thinking, but with them set up so when the pilot initiates a turn, the guns track into the turn. that way the guns can come to bear a little quicker than the craft can turn, but the pilot isn't trying to aim the guns and the craft in different directions at the same time. I like TLWs suggestion, anything that actively takes your attention away from flying in combat is a problem. If it was just you and a target and flying the ship that's one thing but you also have to add in others trying to shoot you down and in a 3D environment. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 12, 2018 10:58:33 GMT
that's sort of what I was thinking, but with them set up so when the pilot initiates a turn, the guns track into the turn. that way the guns can come to bear a little quicker than the craft can turn, but the pilot isn't trying to aim the guns and the craft in different directions at the same time. I like TLWs suggestion, anything that actively takes your attention away from flying in combat is a problem. If it was just you and a target and flying the ship that's one thing but you also have to add in others trying to shoot you down and in a 3D environment. an interesting anecdote on the subject. there was an article back around the turn of the century about a company in Texas that took two seater jet trainers and had them fitted with war games equipment, and for a less than astronomical price, would take people up above a set safety floor and let the customers have dogfights with each other. (presumably the company pilot would take over if they dropped below the floor) one trend they commented on in the article was that customers with flight training tended to be at a disadvantage against people with no flight training because the people with flight training tended to think in terms of up and down, and the non pilots tended to think more in terms of relationship to the target. |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Oct 13, 2018 15:22:56 GMT
Space combat would be very different to atmospheric combat in one important area; Range of engagement.
In atmosphere the maximum engagement range is 100 miles (The AIM-54 Phoenix and the current versions of the AIM-120 AMRAAM). In terms of space combat that is point blank range.
Projectile weapons would not be limited in range in the same way as they are in atmosphere. So in theory even a simple M-16 should be capable of hitting a target hundreds of thousands of miles away.
However, there are more than a few problems with this.
First off you have to account for local gravity wells, then for variations caused by the weapon and its firing that will cause scattering; Which at these kinds of ranges means that you could literally miss a planet. Last off all you have account for the movement of your target and how long it will take for the projectile to reach it. This is, simply, impossible to do.
Projectile guns would, therefore, only really be useful at very close ranges as point defense weapons.
But not against fighters.
Assuming known real world physics and technology the best weapon to use would be missiles. They have the ability to change course to compensate for gravity and target movement. Guns would basically be used to shoot down missiles during their final attack stage (when they would have to switch to using active sensors) either by 'direct' fire or by throwing up a wall of flack and hoping that some of the shrapnel hits the missile(s). Basically think of the way the guns worked in the Reimagined Battlestar Galactica series and you have the idea.
Long range protection would come from stealth, medium through ECM, which would probably include decoys, and short range from flack screens. Remember that the distances in question are vastly greater than those on Earth, so simple 'direct' fire against missiles is of questionable use not just because of the odds of hitting anything. But because at the ranges you are likely to hit you would still end up being hit by a cloud of fast moving debris that could cause almost as much damage as the warhead. In fact if the warhead was a solid 'dart' designed to go through armour you could end up being hit by this anyway.
In terms of turrets on 'fighters' this is questionable if you are thinking in terms of an F-15, and in fact there is even a question as to if 'fighters' would even be viable in the terms we are used to using the term.
It is unlikely that a space 'fighter' is going to be a single seat craft simply due to the workload on the pilot. More over the ranges mean that close in fighter vs fighter combat would be highly unusual, at least in space. 'Dogfighting' would, if it took place, occur over ranges of a thousand miles or more and the limitations of weight (ok, mass) means that such a fighter is most likely going to be incapable of high Gee-Turns either because the structure is simply not capable of such forces or that the engines are just going to be powerful enough to shift the mass fast enough to create such forces.
Size is another major factor. Something akin in size to an F-16 or F-15 is simply not going to have the fuel supply to be able to remain on station or patrol any real distance. Further the size of the equipment you could carry is going to seriously limit the effectiveness of a 'fighter'. Sure, its smaller than a 'capital' ship capable of having a flight deck and therefore harder to detect at range. But by the same token a fighters own sensor range and capabilities means that it would end up having to close to a very close range (relatively speaking) before being able to detect their target.
Basically looking at things like this you quickly realize that the space needed for fighters, their fuel, munitions, spares and launching/recovery system would be better used to add missile tubes, extra sensors and point defense systems.
'Fighters' are therefore much more likely to be largely self contained starships in their own right. Think less F-15 and more Space Shuttle, only larger. Such craft would have enough internal space to allow a reasonable endurance, range, weaponry and sensor systems. Such 'fighters' could have several crew members, including dedicated ECM, communications and gunner personal. They would forgo the use of an internal hanger, instead connecting to a larger ship though external docking port. This would also allow them to be deployed very quickly, and in such a way that they would automatically be in an escort formation and at the same speed as their parent ship.
Now for a 'fighter' of this size turrets would actually be both viable and indeed highly useful. But not for dogfighting, for point defense. Such fighters would typically be deployed to supplement the defenses of the parent ship, not primarily as an offensive force. Their ECM systems and turrets would increase the defenses there. They could be used offensively, closing to fire missiles at a target and then relying on their turrets and ECM to protect against return missile fire. If they ended up running into their counterparts, or being used to try and clear them out to weaken a targets defenses, such combat would be basically be a smaller version of the combat between the bigger ships. With missiles being fired against targets that would be using point defense turrets to try and shoot the missiles down and ECM to confuse missiles. This scale would involve movement that would probably be considered 'dogfighting' but this would be more about avoiding shrapnel and throwing off any gunfire than attempting to get the guns to bare. 'Fighters' may even have missile turrets intended specifically to deal with other fighters, rather than the larger (and presumably better armored) Capital ships.
If you wanted to increase sensor ranges you'd be better off using drones, which would be smaller and harder to detect as well as a lot cheaper to make and easier to replace. These may well have some weaponry, most likely small missiles, should they have a chance to fire on fighters or other drones.
This is for 'real world' physics and technology, or close to real world technology. If you start adding other technologies you may get different results.
Note; Lasers would most likely be part of a point defense system not an offensive main weapon. Lasers scatter, even in space, so have a limited range. Worse however is that unlike firing a conventional ballistic weapon there is a very good chance that firing lasers would result in your target detecting the light and revealing your position. Rail guns may have a similar issue, depending on the sensitivity of the sensors and the distance between the two ships.
This is another reason for suspecting that missiles would be the weapon of choice; You can launch them in such a way you don't reveal your position and have their engines kick in once you are clear of that area. Likewise conventional guns may be ideal for point defense as they likewise might be able to be used without revealing your exact location.
|
|
