Some definition problems: Consider the I-400 class submersible aircraft carrier of the IJN. Aircraft are not a means of defense. There is no CAP. Not being seen is the sole means of defense. Consider the Venator properly using FTL capable parasite craft like the Y-wing and ARC fighter. Primary means of defense is being in a different star system to the target or interstellar space and thereby not being able to be found by a retaliatory strike. CSP exists, but is secondary. Consider a docking carrier. The internal volume dedicated to carrying the parasites amount to a cargo airlock each if they're boats with their own crew accomodation. I would replace both the volume clause and the primary offense and defense clause with "contributes to combat primarily through its parasite craft."
Counter points: You seem to assume that the I-400s qualified as aircraft carriers simply because they carry aircraft, when they were less submersible aircraft carriers and more submarines that could carry a small number of strike craft. Warspite also carried aircraft (one of which sank a U-boat in Narvik), but she isn't considered an aircraft carrier. The I-400's primary weapons were the 8 bow torpedo tubes. The 3 aircraft were a secondary weapon. Yes, the Venator's main defense would be being in a different location while using it's FTL capable parasite craft. And that kind of defense is possible solely because the Venator is using parasite craft. Hence the parasite craft are still the primary means of defense. In WW2, the primary way fighters and strike craft (i.e. parasite craft) contributed to the defense of the carrier was by allowing the carrier to be somewhere else while the strike was being carried out. As for the docking carrier, that would depend on what the rest of it's volume is being used for. The parent ship may dedicate a large amount of its volume to carrying fuel, ammunition, and other stores for the parasite craft, as well as parasite command and control facilities. If instead the rest of it's volume consists of armor, shields, and heavy weapons, then, like an Imperial Star Destroyer, its more a battleship than a carrier.
Re the Town class conversion, my thoughts are that rather than try turning them into a super Destroyer, make them a convoy escort ship. Proposed refit: 1) Fit hydrophones (RN remembers Aboukir, Hogue and Cressy) 2) Update electrics, generators etc 3) You don't have radar yet, but make allowance (space/weight etc) for it to be fitted later 4) Update Director, fit HACS 5) Remove the 2 x 6 inch, replace with 2 twin 4 inch HA 6) remove the 10 x 4 inch replace with 4 x quad pom pom (one each on the formost and aftmost 4 inch positions on each side) and either 2 or 3 twin 4 inch mounts per side (3 if you can, but 2 if weight/stability would otherwise be a problem) That gives you a very capable convoy escort, basically a small slow AA cruiser. Too slow for battlefleet work, but very useful fighting convoys through the Med/protecting convoys in the Far East from air attack. Also decent anti surface broadside against Destroyers or smaller (and some of the lighter Italian cruisers as well).
the rebels did eventually adopt a carrier doctrine like you recommend they use the Venator for. however, they used the Mon Cal star cruisers as their carriers because they could actually build them in house. they real mistake is that the empire mass scrapped them instead of using them.
I've always been fond of the idea of the Rebel Alliance using an old Separatist Lucrehulk-class battleship (it's official designation even though it should be a carrier) as a mobile base. It can carry over a thousand fighters plus transports and ground troops. The core can detach and land on a planet should that be needed (e.g. for gathering resources). The hangers in the outer ring are big enough to accommodate something as large as a Corellian Corvette for fairly easy repair, resupply, and maintenance. For anything larger, the ring could be repurposed as an orbital drydock while the core is detached.
3:52:01 LMAO It is hilarious to learn that Doc Clarke knows of Vtubers (specifically Rin Penrose), has told his mom about them and she has apparenly become a fan. That is hilarious. Also, as someone who is also a Vtuber fan, she seems to have understood the word "Oshi" correctly as it means "favourite" (afaik the term originates from Idols rather than fictional characters). She probably got it from one of Rin's RUclips Shorts where she explained vtubers terms (that or she really got deeper into the vtuber rabbit hole to learn it more generally, which would honestly be really impressive).
I can see a lot of issues with living ships, and them catching a cold is the least of them! 1) All animals and plants need to respire, how are you going to supply them with the respiratory gases they require in space? No atmosphere... 2) They may not need fuel, but they do need to eat. How are you going to feed them, and where are you getting that food! Also even assuming you have perfect digestion (which nothing has, Digestion is a relatively inefficient process) food tends to be bulkier than say rocket fuel, so where are you storing it? 3) How are you going to stop cold damage? Sorry but even sci fi flesh is not going to be able to withstand almost absolute zero temperatures, so you need a way to keep that tissue warm, or to insulate it from the cold of space. 4) What happens if one of them just ups and dies from, oh I don't know, a heart attack? 5) Exactly how is your spaceship veterinarian going to operate on a sick or injured ship? As for the Asgard, do not get me started, those guys were idiots! I mean if they could not come up with a simple backup plan for Genetic degradation, a thing that happens literally naturally, then sorry, they are first rate morons! Or, more likely the writers do not know that our own cells have extensive DNA self repair mechanisms that are actually very effective, and even THEY fail.... Genetic degradation is not just a possibility, its GOING to happen, so not having a plan to reverse that given their available tech is the height of stupidity!
Yes… Space carriers, fighters Depends on the universe and the rule of cool. Especially, in a visual medium, people need/want an anchor to their expectations. And of course that anchor has to have familiarity. Pew pew or more dakka, it’s all about the cool. Would the Ark Royal have been a potent weapon if her Swordfish went after Bismarck and her armour reduced the effect of their torpedoes to the equivalent of being hit by a 40mm bofors? Of course not. It’s Sci Fi though so it depends on how ‘hard’ a setting it is.
Thanks Alex. Very fun stream that I can see myself coming back to rewatch. Curious to see your thoughts on the BattleTech setting and how they handle warships and naval assets. Essentially FTL occurs via point to point gates and then inner planets done via dropships. Most combat is terrestrial with ships being smaller scale - think torpedo boats and maybe corvettes as opposed to capital ships. The in universe reason is due to the fragility of warships vs nukes and inability to protect naval infrastructure. The fragility of large navies and their supporting industries pushing nations towards smaller ships rarely appears in sci fi, so I’m curious as your thoughts on the subject.
Carriers in Space are a silly idea . 1. Youve put a big hole or multiple holes in the side of your ship . 2. Chemical and nuclear explosions don't really work anymore 3. It's easier and more destructive to fire chunks of metal , a 250kg bit of metal going 7 metres per second which is pedestrian in space imparts 1 kiloton of energy onto whatever it hits
I'm not certain why you think that: 1) Military Space Ships are going to have many many holes through the outer hull for drives, pitch/roll/yaw thrusters, sensors, docking rings, escape vehicles, weapons, communications gear, thermal management systems, and so on. Adding on the hanger apparatus is not going to make a meaningful difference to a vessel which is supposed to be on the back-line of any engagement. Additionally, you can structure the space-frame such that the hangers do not compromise the survivability of things like engineering, CIC, and crew facilities because air-/hydro-dynamics are usually a non-issue 2) I can kinda see your point here in that you don't have an atmosphere to amplify the blast effects of high-yield explosives, but a multi-kiloton warhead going off right next to the hull of the target is still going to be felt. And because you don't have to fight air resistance or gravity, your warheads can balloon in size to offset the loss in effectiveness from operating in a vacuum. 3) That's assuming that you're operating at close enough range where the enemy doesn't have time to react to the firing of dumb projectiles. A very small course change on the part of the target will render the salvo harmless. So you you'll still want some form of guided projectiles in your inventory as a safety measure. Strike craft are able to close the gap quicker, while having a smaller profile, but still carry ship-killing weaponry. Even just being able to lay a minefield ahead of an enemy force rapidly and forcing them onto a longer trajectory is valuable. As an additional counterpoint: Space control. A Frigate, Destroyer, Cruiser, BB, BC can only be in one place; a CV or CVE can be in N+1 places where "N" is the number of daughter craft and the Mother-ship. This way you can provide escort or patrols for multiple assets within a system in a low-threat environment. The spacewing can also be used for interdiction and enforcement duties within a system. There are many duties that are ideal for craft in the fighter to small boat spectrum, but something like a frigate or sloop couldn't do efficiently.
@@ruhnon331 Nope, much of the destructive force of a nuke for example is blast propagation. Blast DOES NOT propagate in vacuum. Its not reduced, its not less, it literally does not propagate. That means ANY blast related damage literally WILL NOT AFFECT THE TARGET. Period. Do not stop, do not collect 200 bucks. That is simple Laws of Physics at work and there is precisely no way around it. Without an atmosphere, blast effects do not propagate. Its as simple as that. Next you have issues with those strike craft. I see several problems here, which have to be solved. 1) Those Strike Craft MUST have engine power sufficient not only to ensure they are capable of reaching a useful speed in the distances that space combat will likely be fought at, but also powerful enough to accelerate and decelerate the vehicle fast enough to make that high speed useful. This requires large engines. 2) You need to be able to store enough fuel for a decent sortie time for those strike craft given said long distances, while also retaining enough capacity for a useful weapons loadout. Again, this is going to require size. 3) You need to ensure the crew has the requisite life support for the operations involved, at the distances and the time scales which are implicit in space combat. 4) The strike craft itself is going to require extensive sensor systems to be able to not only navigate to its target, but also to be able to guide its weapons in without having to be affected by potential time lag issues caused by the extreme ranges and the minor little fact that all these sensor systems are limited to the speed of light. All of those things means the space strike craft is going to be huge. Which means that any carrier that is going to be carrying such strike craft is ALSO going to have to be huge. The smallest I consider even sort of feasible as a Space Strike Fighter is around the size of the largest modern commercial jet liners, and even then only barely. Put frankly, a highly accelerated bit of metal is going to get to the target much faster than any possible strike craft (given current or near future technology and lacking 'space magic' sci fi explanations), and is going to do a hell of a lot more damage than any explosive weapons because unlike explosion, the effects of a kinetic round hitting a target in space DO propagate. So sorry to burst your bubble, but in the conceivable future, until we have worked out something like miniaturised Fusion power strike fighters in space are going to be too big, too short ranged, and too slow to make any meaningful contribution in the real world... They are cool as all hell in fiction, but for the conceivable future they are not going to happen. Not with one person parasite craft anyway. Some of the larger Martian ships in the Expanse series are a FAR more likely route for carrier style Ships in the future of humanity given current technology and potential future breakthroughs....
@@ruhnon331 What do you not understand about the fact that blast does not propagate without atmosphere? Its not a case of nuclear or explosive weapons blasts are reduced, its literally that that blast simply does not propagate and transfer, neither, does heat. That means you can explode a nuclear weapon near a ship and it will be unaffected by the blast. The heavy gamma radiation may be another matter, but the blast itself is not an issue. Increasing the size f the warheads is not going to affect that lack of blast propagation at all, and a huge portion of the damage caused by such weapons in atmosphere are that blast. Space is not the same as Air. So here are a few thoughts on what Strike Craft in space would need to have in order to be effective: 1) Power plants, you need to be able to go fast, sure, but in space that's less of an issue as a continuous, steady acceleration will continuously increase the speed of the vehicle. What IS an issue however is to be useful Strike Craft will need to be able to accelerate and decelerate very rapidly. That means huge engines capable of large amounts of thrust. 2) Fuel, space combat will be conducted at ranges of orders of magnitude higher than on Earth. We are not talking a couple thousand miles here, we are talking hundreds of thousands, potentially millions. You are going to need an absolute ton of fuel to be able to operate far enough ahead of the fleet to be actually USEFUL. There is precisely no point in fighters with a range of say 20,000 miles if combat ranges are in excess of two hundred thousand.... Fact is tiny little one man space fighters like you see in say Star Wars are frankly impossible with any tech currently even theoretically available. Its sci fi space magic, the real world does not work like that. In reality Strike Craft carried by Carriers are likely to be small ships themselves, not boats, ships. Otherwise you simply are NOT going to have the room for everything you need, fuel, engines, power supply, sensors, weapons, life support for the crew (likely going to need multiple crew) and so on. In other words you are unlikely going to be able to field hundreds, let alone thousands of them. The most likely carrier born strike craft with our current understanding of technology, even if we manage to crack Fusion, are likely to be along the same lines of those seen in the Expanse. In other words, Corvette sized ships, because nothing smaller will have the endurance, sensor capability or weapons load to be able to act as workable 'Space Fighters' if only because of the truly HUGE distances that are going to be involved....
@@alganhar1 There are many different types of explosive warhead in the world today, and I can think of at least two which impart a direct kinetic blow to the target to do damage (HEAT and HESH). Yes, I absolutely agree that the lack of atmospheric pressure is going to blunt the effectiveness of any type of explosive, but if I set off a mini sun within ten meters, or worse yet in direct contact with, your hull, it's gonna do more than scratch the paint and cause the quartermaster to need to re-organize his hardware collection. I could also see such missiles being equipped with armor-penetrating heads, and detonating *inside* the hull is going to quickly reduce things to an unusable state, even without an atomic warhead. If nothing else, the inside of the hull is likely to have atmosphere, which will create a significant over pressure event even as the atmosphere is venting to space. A sufficiently large warhead sufficiently close to the target will do damage to it, even if "close" in this context is best measured in nanometers. We can see this in nature with the effects of Supernovae on their local areas. Edit: A better example is the Orion Drive concept The rest of your response is based on a set of assumptions that are no more or less valid than my own. No, we cannot replicate even the "simpler" space fighters that have been portrayed with our current level of technology, but we also can't get anything out of Earth's gravity well bigger than a few dozen tons at the moment. The main conceit of this video is that the ships in question are backed by the technology and tactical or strategic constraints which make a single-seat or small crew strike craft viable. Now, reality may prove you right or it may turn science fantasy into science fact, but we are sufficiently far enough away from that point in either case to definitively say which way it will be. We are functionally two persons in a 15th century pub arguing over whether man will be able to soar aloft from the deck of His Majesty's Ships. To pick on one in particular, you're assuming that combat will always take place at astronomical ranges and at a relatively slow speeds, and that strike craft will be engaged in WWII style dogfights and attack runs. Even today, most nation's fighter and attack doctrines call for the use of stand-off weapons first and close-in weapons, like guns or other unguided munitions as weapons of last resort. Sensor technology might advance to the point where combat ranges measured in AU, Light Minutes, or even Light Hours are the norm... Or Electronic warfare and stealth technology might advance to the point where the only way to be sure that the target you've chosen is the one you actually want to hit is to close the range down to thousands of kilometers and pierce the EW/ECM screen. You may be right that the smallest viable space warfare craft is a couple of hundred tons and has a crew in the low two digits, but if it's filling the strike craft role, and launched from a carrier... then it's still a strike craft launched from a space-carrier.
@@ruhnon331 Perhaps, but a 5 man 'fighter' weighing in at say 1000 tons displacement is NOT the same as what most people are terming a Fighter, even if it is in fact such, I prefer the term Parasite Craft rather than fighter to avoid modern preconceptions of what fighters are, which is a major issue when theory crafting about such topics. Even without anything else the sheer SIZE of space means such ships need vast combat ranges in contrast to modern Fighters. You may well be looking at patrol times, for the fighters, of days, perhaps longer. And its those huge distances that really determine the minimum size, as you need fuel and life support at the very least for the crew for a useful patrol range. Then you have the sheer amount of electronics, navigation equipment and weapons, which virtually DEMANDS multiple crew, unless you want to completely overload the pilot. As for sensor technology advancing to the point where Light Minutes or Light Hours are the norm. Sorry, but the problem is not SEEING them, its about factoring in Time, because like it or not there is not even a hypothetical way to push sensors past light speed. Which means you are limited to that light speed. So if you detect a potentially hostile ship a Light Hour away, then you have just detected where he was AN HOUR AGO. Similarly if you are ten light minutes from your Carrier, it will take 20 minutes for a message to be relayed from one ship and the reply arriving. Finally, speed is not the issue, I never claimed it was, ACCELERATION is the issue. Its not a question in space of how fast can you safely go, but how fast can you GET to that maximum speed. If you can only safely accelerate at say 1 G you are going to take a LOT longer to get to 0.1 C than you would if you can safely accelerate at 100 G, but you WILL get there, eventually. Its that acceleration Parasite Craft need to make them useful functionally, because what the hell use is a parasite craft that can only accelerate at the same rate as its Carrier in Space? It's essentially worthless. That is why you need the big engines and the absolute ton of fuel, because you need that acceleration, and the fuel to maintain that acceleration for potentially lengthy periods (or deceleration for that matter). Finally, there are worse things to discuss in the Pub!
Says Aircraft Carriers are silly walks past Imperial BattleFleet Gothic Fleet and sees an Emperor Class , Mars Class , 2 Dictator and an Endeavour Class .......... Acts casual Although I'll stick by the claim carriers are silly ....... Only the Endeavour is plausible and that's a scout vessel in lore
Some definition problems: Consider the I-400 class submersible aircraft carrier of the IJN. Aircraft are not a means of defense. There is no CAP. Not being seen is the sole means of defense.
Consider the Venator properly using FTL capable parasite craft like the Y-wing and ARC fighter. Primary means of defense is being in a different star system to the target or interstellar space and thereby not being able to be found by a retaliatory strike. CSP exists, but is secondary.
Consider a docking carrier. The internal volume dedicated to carrying the parasites amount to a cargo airlock each if they're boats with their own crew accomodation.
I would replace both the volume clause and the primary offense and defense clause with "contributes to combat primarily through its parasite craft."
Counter points: You seem to assume that the I-400s qualified as aircraft carriers simply because they carry aircraft, when they were less submersible aircraft carriers and more submarines that could carry a small number of strike craft. Warspite also carried aircraft (one of which sank a U-boat in Narvik), but she isn't considered an aircraft carrier. The I-400's primary weapons were the 8 bow torpedo tubes. The 3 aircraft were a secondary weapon.
Yes, the Venator's main defense would be being in a different location while using it's FTL capable parasite craft. And that kind of defense is possible solely because the Venator is using parasite craft. Hence the parasite craft are still the primary means of defense. In WW2, the primary way fighters and strike craft (i.e. parasite craft) contributed to the defense of the carrier was by allowing the carrier to be somewhere else while the strike was being carried out.
As for the docking carrier, that would depend on what the rest of it's volume is being used for. The parent ship may dedicate a large amount of its volume to carrying fuel, ammunition, and other stores for the parasite craft, as well as parasite command and control facilities. If instead the rest of it's volume consists of armor, shields, and heavy weapons, then, like an Imperial Star Destroyer, its more a battleship than a carrier.
Re the Town class conversion, my thoughts are that rather than try turning them into a super Destroyer, make them a convoy escort ship. Proposed refit:
1) Fit hydrophones (RN remembers Aboukir, Hogue and Cressy)
2) Update electrics, generators etc
3) You don't have radar yet, but make allowance (space/weight etc) for it to be fitted later
4) Update Director, fit HACS
5) Remove the 2 x 6 inch, replace with 2 twin 4 inch HA
6) remove the 10 x 4 inch replace with 4 x quad pom pom (one each on the formost and aftmost 4 inch positions on each side) and either 2 or 3 twin 4 inch mounts per side (3 if you can, but 2 if weight/stability would otherwise be a problem)
That gives you a very capable convoy escort, basically a small slow AA cruiser. Too slow for battlefleet work, but very useful fighting convoys through the Med/protecting convoys in the Far East from air attack. Also decent anti surface broadside against Destroyers or smaller (and some of the lighter Italian cruisers as well).
the rebels did eventually adopt a carrier doctrine like you recommend they use the Venator for. however, they used the Mon Cal star cruisers as their carriers because they could actually build them in house. they real mistake is that the empire mass scrapped them instead of using them.
I've always been fond of the idea of the Rebel Alliance using an old Separatist Lucrehulk-class battleship (it's official designation even though it should be a carrier) as a mobile base. It can carry over a thousand fighters plus transports and ground troops. The core can detach and land on a planet should that be needed (e.g. for gathering resources). The hangers in the outer ring are big enough to accommodate something as large as a Corellian Corvette for fairly easy repair, resupply, and maintenance. For anything larger, the ring could be repurposed as an orbital drydock while the core is detached.
3:52:01 LMAO
It is hilarious to learn that Doc Clarke knows of Vtubers (specifically Rin Penrose), has told his mom about them and she has apparenly become a fan. That is hilarious.
Also, as someone who is also a Vtuber fan, she seems to have understood the word "Oshi" correctly as it means "favourite" (afaik the term originates from Idols rather than fictional characters). She probably got it from one of Rin's RUclips Shorts where she explained vtubers terms (that or she really got deeper into the vtuber rabbit hole to learn it more generally, which would honestly be really impressive).
I can see a lot of issues with living ships, and them catching a cold is the least of them!
1) All animals and plants need to respire, how are you going to supply them with the respiratory gases they require in space? No atmosphere...
2) They may not need fuel, but they do need to eat. How are you going to feed them, and where are you getting that food! Also even assuming you have perfect digestion (which nothing has, Digestion is a relatively inefficient process) food tends to be bulkier than say rocket fuel, so where are you storing it?
3) How are you going to stop cold damage? Sorry but even sci fi flesh is not going to be able to withstand almost absolute zero temperatures, so you need a way to keep that tissue warm, or to insulate it from the cold of space.
4) What happens if one of them just ups and dies from, oh I don't know, a heart attack?
5) Exactly how is your spaceship veterinarian going to operate on a sick or injured ship?
As for the Asgard, do not get me started, those guys were idiots! I mean if they could not come up with a simple backup plan for Genetic degradation, a thing that happens literally naturally, then sorry, they are first rate morons! Or, more likely the writers do not know that our own cells have extensive DNA self repair mechanisms that are actually very effective, and even THEY fail.... Genetic degradation is not just a possibility, its GOING to happen, so not having a plan to reverse that given their available tech is the height of stupidity!
About your model of Belfast, do you think the build time is going to be comparable to the build time of the original? 🙂
What about Cloud Base from Captain Scarlet and the Manta carriers in Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow.
I need to teach you about Aerospace in BattleTech, don’t I?
Yes…
Space carriers, fighters
Depends on the universe and the rule of cool. Especially, in a visual medium, people need/want an anchor to their expectations.
And of course that anchor has to have familiarity. Pew pew or more dakka, it’s all about the cool.
Would the Ark Royal have been a potent weapon if her Swordfish went after Bismarck and her armour reduced the effect of their torpedoes to the equivalent of being hit by a 40mm bofors? Of course not. It’s Sci Fi though so it depends on how ‘hard’ a setting it is.
Thanks Alex. Very fun stream that I can see myself coming back to rewatch.
Curious to see your thoughts on the BattleTech setting and how they handle warships and naval assets. Essentially FTL occurs via point to point gates and then inner planets done via dropships. Most combat is terrestrial with ships being smaller scale - think torpedo boats and maybe corvettes as opposed to capital ships. The in universe reason is due to the fragility of warships vs nukes and inability to protect naval infrastructure.
The fragility of large navies and their supporting industries pushing nations towards smaller ships rarely appears in sci fi, so I’m curious as your thoughts on the subject.
Carriers in Space are a silly idea . 1. Youve put a big hole or multiple holes in the side of your ship .
2. Chemical and nuclear explosions don't really work anymore
3. It's easier and more destructive to fire chunks of metal , a 250kg bit of metal going 7 metres per second which is pedestrian in space imparts 1 kiloton of energy onto whatever it hits
I'm not certain why you think that:
1) Military Space Ships are going to have many many holes through the outer hull for drives, pitch/roll/yaw thrusters, sensors, docking rings, escape vehicles, weapons, communications gear, thermal management systems, and so on. Adding on the hanger apparatus is not going to make a meaningful difference to a vessel which is supposed to be on the back-line of any engagement. Additionally, you can structure the space-frame such that the hangers do not compromise the survivability of things like engineering, CIC, and crew facilities because air-/hydro-dynamics are usually a non-issue
2) I can kinda see your point here in that you don't have an atmosphere to amplify the blast effects of high-yield explosives, but a multi-kiloton warhead going off right next to the hull of the target is still going to be felt. And because you don't have to fight air resistance or gravity, your warheads can balloon in size to offset the loss in effectiveness from operating in a vacuum.
3) That's assuming that you're operating at close enough range where the enemy doesn't have time to react to the firing of dumb projectiles. A very small course change on the part of the target will render the salvo harmless. So you you'll still want some form of guided projectiles in your inventory as a safety measure. Strike craft are able to close the gap quicker, while having a smaller profile, but still carry ship-killing weaponry. Even just being able to lay a minefield ahead of an enemy force rapidly and forcing them onto a longer trajectory is valuable.
As an additional counterpoint: Space control. A Frigate, Destroyer, Cruiser, BB, BC can only be in one place; a CV or CVE can be in N+1 places where "N" is the number of daughter craft and the Mother-ship. This way you can provide escort or patrols for multiple assets within a system in a low-threat environment. The spacewing can also be used for interdiction and enforcement duties within a system. There are many duties that are ideal for craft in the fighter to small boat spectrum, but something like a frigate or sloop couldn't do efficiently.
@@ruhnon331 Nope, much of the destructive force of a nuke for example is blast propagation. Blast DOES NOT propagate in vacuum. Its not reduced, its not less, it literally does not propagate. That means ANY blast related damage literally WILL NOT AFFECT THE TARGET. Period. Do not stop, do not collect 200 bucks. That is simple Laws of Physics at work and there is precisely no way around it. Without an atmosphere, blast effects do not propagate. Its as simple as that.
Next you have issues with those strike craft. I see several problems here, which have to be solved.
1) Those Strike Craft MUST have engine power sufficient not only to ensure they are capable of reaching a useful speed in the distances that space combat will likely be fought at, but also powerful enough to accelerate and decelerate the vehicle fast enough to make that high speed useful. This requires large engines.
2) You need to be able to store enough fuel for a decent sortie time for those strike craft given said long distances, while also retaining enough capacity for a useful weapons loadout. Again, this is going to require size.
3) You need to ensure the crew has the requisite life support for the operations involved, at the distances and the time scales which are implicit in space combat.
4) The strike craft itself is going to require extensive sensor systems to be able to not only navigate to its target, but also to be able to guide its weapons in without having to be affected by potential time lag issues caused by the extreme ranges and the minor little fact that all these sensor systems are limited to the speed of light.
All of those things means the space strike craft is going to be huge. Which means that any carrier that is going to be carrying such strike craft is ALSO going to have to be huge. The smallest I consider even sort of feasible as a Space Strike Fighter is around the size of the largest modern commercial jet liners, and even then only barely.
Put frankly, a highly accelerated bit of metal is going to get to the target much faster than any possible strike craft (given current or near future technology and lacking 'space magic' sci fi explanations), and is going to do a hell of a lot more damage than any explosive weapons because unlike explosion, the effects of a kinetic round hitting a target in space DO propagate.
So sorry to burst your bubble, but in the conceivable future, until we have worked out something like miniaturised Fusion power strike fighters in space are going to be too big, too short ranged, and too slow to make any meaningful contribution in the real world...
They are cool as all hell in fiction, but for the conceivable future they are not going to happen. Not with one person parasite craft anyway. Some of the larger Martian ships in the Expanse series are a FAR more likely route for carrier style Ships in the future of humanity given current technology and potential future breakthroughs....
@@ruhnon331 What do you not understand about the fact that blast does not propagate without atmosphere? Its not a case of nuclear or explosive weapons blasts are reduced, its literally that that blast simply does not propagate and transfer, neither, does heat. That means you can explode a nuclear weapon near a ship and it will be unaffected by the blast. The heavy gamma radiation may be another matter, but the blast itself is not an issue. Increasing the size f the warheads is not going to affect that lack of blast propagation at all, and a huge portion of the damage caused by such weapons in atmosphere are that blast.
Space is not the same as Air. So here are a few thoughts on what Strike Craft in space would need to have in order to be effective:
1) Power plants, you need to be able to go fast, sure, but in space that's less of an issue as a continuous, steady acceleration will continuously increase the speed of the vehicle. What IS an issue however is to be useful Strike Craft will need to be able to accelerate and decelerate very rapidly. That means huge engines capable of large amounts of thrust.
2) Fuel, space combat will be conducted at ranges of orders of magnitude higher than on Earth. We are not talking a couple thousand miles here, we are talking hundreds of thousands, potentially millions. You are going to need an absolute ton of fuel to be able to operate far enough ahead of the fleet to be actually USEFUL. There is precisely no point in fighters with a range of say 20,000 miles if combat ranges are in excess of two hundred thousand....
Fact is tiny little one man space fighters like you see in say Star Wars are frankly impossible with any tech currently even theoretically available. Its sci fi space magic, the real world does not work like that. In reality Strike Craft carried by Carriers are likely to be small ships themselves, not boats, ships. Otherwise you simply are NOT going to have the room for everything you need, fuel, engines, power supply, sensors, weapons, life support for the crew (likely going to need multiple crew) and so on. In other words you are unlikely going to be able to field hundreds, let alone thousands of them.
The most likely carrier born strike craft with our current understanding of technology, even if we manage to crack Fusion, are likely to be along the same lines of those seen in the Expanse. In other words, Corvette sized ships, because nothing smaller will have the endurance, sensor capability or weapons load to be able to act as workable 'Space Fighters' if only because of the truly HUGE distances that are going to be involved....
@@alganhar1 There are many different types of explosive warhead in the world today, and I can think of at least two which impart a direct kinetic blow to the target to do damage (HEAT and HESH). Yes, I absolutely agree that the lack of atmospheric pressure is going to blunt the effectiveness of any type of explosive, but if I set off a mini sun within ten meters, or worse yet in direct contact with, your hull, it's gonna do more than scratch the paint and cause the quartermaster to need to re-organize his hardware collection.
I could also see such missiles being equipped with armor-penetrating heads, and detonating *inside* the hull is going to quickly reduce things to an unusable state, even without an atomic warhead. If nothing else, the inside of the hull is likely to have atmosphere, which will create a significant over pressure event even as the atmosphere is venting to space. A sufficiently large warhead sufficiently close to the target will do damage to it, even if "close" in this context is best measured in nanometers. We can see this in nature with the effects of Supernovae on their local areas. Edit: A better example is the Orion Drive concept
The rest of your response is based on a set of assumptions that are no more or less valid than my own. No, we cannot replicate even the "simpler" space fighters that have been portrayed with our current level of technology, but we also can't get anything out of Earth's gravity well bigger than a few dozen tons at the moment. The main conceit of this video is that the ships in question are backed by the technology and tactical or strategic constraints which make a single-seat or small crew strike craft viable. Now, reality may prove you right or it may turn science fantasy into science fact, but we are sufficiently far enough away from that point in either case to definitively say which way it will be. We are functionally two persons in a 15th century pub arguing over whether man will be able to soar aloft from the deck of His Majesty's Ships.
To pick on one in particular, you're assuming that combat will always take place at astronomical ranges and at a relatively slow speeds, and that strike craft will be engaged in WWII style dogfights and attack runs. Even today, most nation's fighter and attack doctrines call for the use of stand-off weapons first and close-in weapons, like guns or other unguided munitions as weapons of last resort. Sensor technology might advance to the point where combat ranges measured in AU, Light Minutes, or even Light Hours are the norm... Or Electronic warfare and stealth technology might advance to the point where the only way to be sure that the target you've chosen is the one you actually want to hit is to close the range down to thousands of kilometers and pierce the EW/ECM screen. You may be right that the smallest viable space warfare craft is a couple of hundred tons and has a crew in the low two digits, but if it's filling the strike craft role, and launched from a carrier... then it's still a strike craft launched from a space-carrier.
@@ruhnon331 Perhaps, but a 5 man 'fighter' weighing in at say 1000 tons displacement is NOT the same as what most people are terming a Fighter, even if it is in fact such, I prefer the term Parasite Craft rather than fighter to avoid modern preconceptions of what fighters are, which is a major issue when theory crafting about such topics.
Even without anything else the sheer SIZE of space means such ships need vast combat ranges in contrast to modern Fighters. You may well be looking at patrol times, for the fighters, of days, perhaps longer. And its those huge distances that really determine the minimum size, as you need fuel and life support at the very least for the crew for a useful patrol range.
Then you have the sheer amount of electronics, navigation equipment and weapons, which virtually DEMANDS multiple crew, unless you want to completely overload the pilot.
As for sensor technology advancing to the point where Light Minutes or Light Hours are the norm. Sorry, but the problem is not SEEING them, its about factoring in Time, because like it or not there is not even a hypothetical way to push sensors past light speed. Which means you are limited to that light speed. So if you detect a potentially hostile ship a Light Hour away, then you have just detected where he was AN HOUR AGO. Similarly if you are ten light minutes from your Carrier, it will take 20 minutes for a message to be relayed from one ship and the reply arriving.
Finally, speed is not the issue, I never claimed it was, ACCELERATION is the issue. Its not a question in space of how fast can you safely go, but how fast can you GET to that maximum speed. If you can only safely accelerate at say 1 G you are going to take a LOT longer to get to 0.1 C than you would if you can safely accelerate at 100 G, but you WILL get there, eventually. Its that acceleration Parasite Craft need to make them useful functionally, because what the hell use is a parasite craft that can only accelerate at the same rate as its Carrier in Space? It's essentially worthless. That is why you need the big engines and the absolute ton of fuel, because you need that acceleration, and the fuel to maintain that acceleration for potentially lengthy periods (or deceleration for that matter).
Finally, there are worse things to discuss in the Pub!
What about SG1?
Says Aircraft Carriers are silly walks past Imperial BattleFleet Gothic Fleet and sees an Emperor Class , Mars Class , 2 Dictator and an Endeavour Class .......... Acts casual
Although I'll stick by the claim carriers are silly ....... Only the Endeavour is plausible and that's a scout vessel in lore
Robo tech.
But Babylon 5 best fighter and most realistic ever. And they all looked amazing.
Macross, not Robotech.
But yes, Babylon 5 Starfuries are really cool.
How does he only have 11.5k?