Why Are There No Fighters in The Expanse? | Expanse Lore
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 8 сен 2024
- Analysis of the combat doctrine used with The Expanse onto the viability, or lack there of, of starfighters.
PATREON: / first_pass
REDDIT: / first_pass
FACEBOOK: / officialfirstpass
First-Pass does not hold ownership of the copyrighted material (Footage, Stills etc) taken from the various works of fiction covered in this series, and uses them within the boundaries of Fair Use for the purpose of Analysis, Discussion and Review.
The final optimisation of a space fighter is an AI-equipped missile.
Big drones carrying 100s of mid-size drones carrying each multiple AI quipped missiles.
Or kind of machinegun ball drones shooting in 20 directions at once.
the artificially intelligent "Thermostellar Triggering Devices" from, in my opinion, John Carpenter's best film Darkstar keep coming to mind when I think about disposable AI drones or missiles.
Or perhaps a drone with PDCs, a few missiles and a self-destruct mechanism so it's final maneuver is to act as a missile itself.
@@richardgilson3512 ha! My thoughts exactly dude. But you’ll need to lecture it in phenomenology to stop it from Blowing up the ship...
A big drone carrier, even a heavily shielded one, could easily be disabled by a large enough EMP... and the use of extremely high yield EMP producing nuclear weapons is a scifi staple.
In short, The Expanse answers the question "are space fighters viable"?. No, they are very much not.
In certain situations they are. It all depends on the technology developed. And it all comes down to arms races.
@@albertjackinson yeah in battlestar their made to couter other figther from getting to close and swarming hardpoints as well as a point defense agiest missiles ( which are shown to be about as fast as vipers) and in babylon their effect as everyone mainly used line of sight energy weapons that over heat in not much time even when kintics where almost as good or better ( earth was the only race to really do missile spam and it help fight much more advance races) that and railguns where effective agiest minbar ships while being smaller and less enegy hunger then the enegy weapons needed to damage them
@@briansouthparkstudio1357 "yeah in battlestar their made to couter other figther " That's fine, but if Battlestar Galactica had more a formidable point defense system all of those fighters would be completely unnecessary. Rapid fire rail guns would annihilate them at enemy at medium range, while lasers and miniguns would knock out any missiles they manage to fire off before they get blasted apart. They only utility of a starfighter sized spaceship would be as an advanced scout, and you would likely us unmanned drones for that role if possible.
Fighters would be effective if it weren't for their one, tiny problem.. The bag of atoms in an EV suit driving..
@@albertjackinson
www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/fighter.php
No they aren't..
Tldr: a missile will do a space fighter's job cheaper and more effectively.
If you read The Expanse books, you get a lot more details about the space combat, especially when things get really hot in Babylon's Ashes etc. In the books it all works very "realistically" in terms of proper Newtonian physics and the colossal delta V's involved in traveling the vast distances. Ships are traveling at some measurable fraction of light speed to get where they need to be and they are not slowing down from that velocity any time soon. This means the ship vs ship combat is all about a) calculating your course/trajectory to put you in position to shoot your foe (using orbital mechanics if anywhere near planets/moons etc) and b) shooting hard and fast enough when you get there to finish them off (I'm counting firing a missile as "shooting" here) as you fly by. You typically get just one chance. Otherwise they are gone, literally into the void, and you got to start the whole process again.
In this scenario the whole concept of a "space fighter" is a complete joke. Sorry Star Wars and Elite Dangerous fans, but it is, the reality is exactly like Kerbal Space Program would be if it had combat in it. The video is also completely accurate in that why on earth would you try to persuade someone to step into a "space fighter" and fly it to their near certain death when you can simply stick a big bomb on the end of a super-charged rocket and point it directly at the enemy, giving it a little nudge in the right direction if necessary along the way?
Coz pew pew pew cool
"Warship" had a similar approach to space battle, and pretty much the same argument for the lack of fighters.
Hard to make super interesting on film, but amazing in book form.
Well, "starfighters" would make sense in one role, in the role of missile trucks, working like extra plataforms to launch more ordinace to the enemy ships well outside the range of their point defense systems in order to overwhelm such point defense systems, but i guess that then they would be more akin to "starbombers" than true fighters.
@@carlosdgutierrez6570
Enemy ships would be travelling thousands of km/h, orbiting planets, moons and asteroids.
There's no stationary warfare in space.
@@MrSurrealKarma nobody said anything about stationary warfare.
And missile trucks are just a cheaper way to deliver a lot of ordinance from different angles to the same target in order to overwhelm its defences.
A lot of commenters here seem to want to shoe-horn fighters into space combat by finding a role for them, but this has never been how military tech has work. When it's been tried, it always resulted in catastrophe, like using cavalry and line formations in WW1. They had to invent new machinery and techniques specifically for the new battlefield.
In terms of the expanse, the closest thing to fighters is smaller corvette class ships, such as the scipio that is mentioned in this video, and of course the Rocinante.
This harks back to the age of sail, where the smallest viable warship was the corvette/caravelle/brig. Big enough to support itself with sufficient supplies and manpower for longer voyages, enough guns to defend itself, but small enough to outrun heavier, more well armed ships.
The same pattern can be seen in the Spanish Armada. A massive fleet of big ships was obliterated by a fleet of smaller, more manoeuvrable ships with sufficient gunnery. They were able to circle and fire both broadsides and outrun a return broadside. Most importantly, losing a small ship does not lose you the war or bankrupt your country, and the manpower is replaceable.
So yes, there is always a place for smaller, more manoeuvrable craft. The question is, how small CAN a ship be. In the Expanse, it's got to be big enough to house an Epstein drive, the engine room, a CDC, comms array, water tanks for manoeuvre thrusters. Enough PDCs to protect itself from a torpedo barrage, enough ammunition for the PDCs to be effective in an engagement before access to resupply. So you have a minimum crew number to run a ship like that, which means a galley, accommodation, supplies, water, the head, life support, recycling systems.
All that before you get to the offensive weapons systems or transport capability. So how small CAN a ship be? Pretty big.
From a crew size perspective any vessel used for war would be large enough to support a much larger crew compared to most other sci fi where the smallest fighters have 1-2 crew members
Question: what about asymetrical warfare ?, human wave work no ?, so why wouldn't fighter ? In a sense i guess unmanned turret drone are more target saturation too if that count as benefit.
@@Errorcutive "Human wave" tactics rely on minimally-trained conscripts with cheap weapons. Space ships are expensive, and training pilots takes a long time and therefore a lot of money.
If you're planning on throwing away the spaceframe anyway, why not just build a missile?
Good read
It's nice to see someone finally take into account the fact that you need supplies for the ship and crew. I find it amazing how much that gets overlooked when debating issues regarding space travel. Thank you for bringing it up.
Another thing that tends to be overlooked is that combat in space is generally being fought at greater distances than in an atmosphere. The authors of the novels make it rather clear that most ship to ship engagements begin at over 5000km. Even when they get close for what they referred to as CQB, this is where rail guns and PDCs get used, the distances are still implied as being greater than 10km. At long range, a small craft is an easy kill. At close range, a small craft is shredded by weapons fire. Think about how easy it was to damage the shuttle with Holden, Case, Amos, Naomi, and Alex onboard with debris from the Canterbury exploding. That was while they were burning as fast as they could away from the explosion. Now imagine several space fighters trying to fly into that.
I got in a huge argument with a friend over this. If you have accurate point defense, or directed energy weapons, fighters do not make sense.
Even in modern naval combat where fighterd have a speed and range advantage, they've become less and less viable due to CIWS innovations.
@@ravenknight4876 If you use real life, then the last aerial vs naval battles happened during the falklands and that proves you wrong.
@@orzorzelski1142 The Falklands war has little to no bearing concerning this topic since it happened almost 40 years ago at this point, back during a time when CIWS was nowhere near as advanced as it is nowadays.
I'm talking about the doctrinal approaches modern militaries have to possible future naval combat right now, and most of them focus on using the horizon as cover and using very long ranged missiles to engage ships, thusly avoiding ever even coming into visual distance if anyhow possible
@@ravenknight4876 You know some if not most of the systems that were used aound the falklands are still in use today, right? You do know that CIWS is not a magic wand that deletes missiles out of existence 100% of the time, right? In short: you're simply talking out of your arse.
The Radar the British currently use on a majority on their surface units (Type 997 Artisan) wasn't even in service during the Falklands war.
The same goes for many, many other electronics used in almost all navies today, and the systems that were in used back then have been regularly updated over the last 40 years to a point at which their modern iterations outperform the versions from back then by a huge margin.
And while you're certainly right in that no CIWS system has yet achieved a 100% success rate (Which is by all means impossible), they are posing an extreme threat to any aircraft that get into their range.
The sole reason for having fighters in scifi is that George Lucas wanted to do ww2 in space.
And Lucas stole that concept from Space Battleship Yamato(AKA Star Blazers).
@Aryan Thakur -- Just look at the chronology. It's well known that Lucas drew on Japanese cinema & TV when he wrote the screenplay for the original Star Wars. "Space Battleship Yamato" originally aired in Japan in 1974-1975. It featured a huge space battleship with Black Tigers, one-man fighting ships. Lucas was writing his screenplay at exactly the same time. The world first heard of Star Wars in November 1976, when the novelization of his screenplay was published as "Star Wars: From the Adventures of Luke Skywalker" by Ballantine Books. The movie itself followed six months later in May 1977.
So there's a very solid case that the Japanese show (which drew heavily on references to WWII) was the inspiration for the fighter pilots in that galaxy far, far away. After the movie came out, SBY was re-dubbed and released as "Star Blazers" on American TV in 1979, to the delight of many young Star Wars fans.
Also, Star Wars isn't science fiction.
@@buckyharris9465 its widely known that he got most of his ideas from Dune just like most other people.
@@buckyharris9465 Hmmm..Lucas began writing Star Wars in Jan 1973, which predates "Space Battleship Yamato" by one year. I think that the major Japanese influence on Lucas was were the films of Akira Kurosawa, not "Space Battleship Yamato", but who can say for sure other than Lucas.
Expanse kind of highlights the problem starfighters have in any kind of sci-fi space combat scenario. Here on Earth,aircraft in general has an advantage over naval ships because they operate in a less dense medium,which is air vs water,and thus laws of physics apply to them in a slightly different way. This means that the slowest aircraft would almost always be much more faster and maneuverable than the fastest ship,and most stories treat their fighters that way. The problem is,in space both kinds of vessels exist in a same medium,which means that the same laws of physics apply to both of them. This means that fighters won't be any more faster or more maneuverable than larger ships,and would operate like small capital ships,but without the advantage of the larger size. This means less space for weapons,defences and supplies.
Most of that doesn't make sense. The Expanse highlights on multiple occasions that smaller ships are faster and more maneuverable than larger ships. In fact, the main argument in this video is that smaller projectiles (missiles/bullets) are so much faster and more maneuverable than larger projectiles (starfighters) that there is no point in having the latter. Your physics is wrong. An object's mass factors into propulsion acceleration in any medium, including a vacuum. The medium the craft is in doesn't change the laws of physics. The same basic laws apply to boats, planes and starships. Why compare aircraft vs ships? What about small aircraft vs large aircraft? Or small ships vs large ships? They are in the same mediums, but they have definite differences in maneuverability. Geometry also matters. The longer the radius/diameter/ship, the farther one end has to move to complete any part of a circular path/turn. Shorter=less distance required for turning=more agile. Combine that better agility with the lower mass/better acceleration, and smaller craft of any kind will inherently be better at acceleration and maneuverability than larger craft. We see that in The Expanse every time a missile easily outpaces and outmaneuvers a ship.
@@thejanssen6030 I think you're missing the point of the comparison. Aircraft vs boats operate advantageously because it is operating under a different sent of physics (air vs. water) and so it is absurdly faster and more maneuverable (and less costly) relative to size. The original poster is just pointing out that translating that example into space doesn't work, because small spaceships are NOT to large spaceships as aircraft are to large ocean ships. Yes, smaller ships are more maneuverable, although that's not really much of a factor in a lot of situations given the kind of weapons involved. That comparison holds true for an ocean-going ships as well. You don't send a corvette up against a battleship and expect a good result because the corvette is smaller and more maneuverable. It is smaller and more maneuverable, but for ship-to-ship combat, that's a fairly meaningless factor outside of niche situations.
All the original poster is trying to get across is that you shouldn't make the intuitive mistake and assume that ships and airplanes are an example that translates to space.
Indeed.
Star Fleet Battles addresses some on these issues
You seem not to understand: in space there is no weight, but the mass is still there - so smaller ships - more maneuverable, and thus, in many ocasions are faster.
@@dfsdfsdsfsdfsdfs6694 i may not have made my point as clear as i could have. I used mediums as a model/metaphor to highlight the key difference between unmanned spacecraft like missiles and manned craft,which is the crew onboard. Smaller ship with a crew will be more maneuverable than bigger ship with a crew due to lower mass/better thrust-to-mass ratio, but both of the upper limits of their maneuverability and acceleration are still limited by the amount of Gs their crews can withstand. So a speed difference between small vs large ship will be more along the lines of a difference between destroyer and a battleship. Destroyers and battleships both have displacing hulls,and so are both limited by the fact that they have to fight against a water resistance,so their speeds today is capped at 32-35 knots(it may rise if we develop more efficient hull shapes/more efficient engines, but these developments would apply to both kinds of ships,so in that case they will both have the same upper speed limit anyway,its just that the limit will be higher). The question of how fast you can make your vessels go in this case will be a matter of engineering/doctrine, e.g. how big of a ship you build or how many engines you put in it,but ultimately it will face the same upper limit as any other manned vessel,which will be the amount of Gs your crew can survive without having too many fatalities from strokes.
honestly I feel that well designed drones could be an amazing bet for hard sci-fi
I always wondered why the didn't put PDCs on a torpedo instead of a payload. Obviously an explosive would be the better offensive choice but defensively having mobile PDCs you could position anywhere you want would be a really cool feature plus they could support mounted PDCs when they run dry or take damage. Or it could allow a ship to loan some of its defenses to a station or ship instead of having to escort it closely and keep it in its PDC field , while also creating a blindspot.
@@outerheaven155 kind of, but a PDC torpedo would need way higher maintenance, plus it'd likely need a central radar and fire control system
also needs to be refueled and restocked
@@demonbot6617 Also the weapons might throw off the balance of tiny rocket sized platforms just from firing. The expanse doesn't seem to use robotics much at all which seems a much better environment for various types of robots then people in lots of cases.
I remember during one of the Expanse panels it was pointed out that there was a lack of automation and drones that we will most likely see in our future. I agree with you 100 percent though. Drones would be 'cheap' in comparison to building destroyers or battleships.
@@outerheaven155 remember the episode where the Roci deployed 'escort' torpedos?
Because when you have access to any reasonable AI, the acceleration limitations of fighting with actual meatbags make it not worth it?
I'd say the closest you could get in terms of a "starfighter" would just be some drones.
@@artificerdrachen6908 in most sci fi the abilities of a vessel to detect another and both of their speeds and accelerations in comparison to eachother are much more advanced. If you put a person in control of the drone they rely on their human senses to get information from the positioning systems and then tell the drone what to do which slows down the process. On the other hand if you automate the drone it has no lapse in speed. I'm not sure which one you were talking about in your comment but I'm not trying to argue regardless, just expand on your point. At the level of tech that exists in the expanse it seems like a lot of things would be better off automated.
@@artificerdrachen6908 aka the Protoss Carrier from Starcraft. 😊
@@artificerdrachen6908 That's what their missiles/torpedoes are, suicidal drones. Maximize acceleration and maneuverability to avoid PDC fire.
@@joshklein987 I always like to think that why there are only manned vessels in the expanse is that drones are to easly jammed, and that there is some law that bans ai
In realistic space combat, “short range” is over a hundred miles. Fighters are gonna get torn to shreds long before their pilots can even see the enemy
the impressive fountains of point defense gunfire and the extreme control they have over guided missiles in the series make any craft below a certain mass seem totally ineffective
lmao, I see no replies defending "space fighters*
@@ls200076 the clouds of hull shredding space junk and dangerous G forces make most manned spacecraft seem solely designed to have humans in the story
@@ls200076 Maybe drones might up to the task. A fighter has the problem (in the expanse universe) that the pilot can't survive high G-forces. But if you had some good ki, you might just fit a small agile ship with a good gun, creating a gun with a thruster and there you are. You got a very agile small weapon.
I just finished the first book, so I'm currious if there is an explanation why there is no kind of AI in this universe.
Its already the case IRL. Fighters no longer dogfight that much. We have beyond visual range missiles, and the fighters that win the the stealthier/the one with better electronnics/better targetting. In space it would be worse.
I think "real" space combat would be a game of EXTREMELY long range sensor detection..."smart" missiles that could take months to years to arrive on target and countermeasures. Combat in real world has always been a game of "see them first and hit them from as far away as possible".
Occupying planets? Different story.
ever heard of the game "childeren of a dead earth"? it is extremely realistic take on how space combat would work. isaac arthur has done a series on space combat and how it would work.
Its basically submarine warfare. I don't think the weapons would take months to arrive because I don't see us out there doing things unless we have the capability to move much faster. I think the only caveat to this is the concept of Drones. I think the downside of torpedo's is that they are single use weapons. If you can deploy smart platforms that can deliver dumb (read that as less expensive) then that is essentially what a fighter is. So a convergence of this is a smart remote delivery system that fires dumb weapons and then can be recovered and reloaded later. So a Torpedo that fires missiles or drops mines.
@@gringofett3944 Except your "sub" can't hide due heat radiation (the only way to get rid of heat in space).
But missiles in The Expanse are so efficient that they only take a few hours or just days to get from one planet to another.
@@Mortlupo I kind of liked mass effects internal heat sink idea as a solution to that problem and how it's not an unlimited thing. If I remember the lore right you get something like 5 days of stealth, basically with everything aboard switched off before you either have to radiate the heat (and obviously give your position away) or boil the crew alive.
In The Expanse, nuclear tipped, Epstein drive propelled, remote-control torpedoes serve the function described for fighters above. To illustrate this, watch season 3 episode 2 "IFF" during the battle sequence between the Rocinante and the pursuing UNN destroyer escort attempting to destroy the racing ship Razorback.
yeah except your torpedoes cant intercept other torpedoes. why does everybody forget the other function of fighters, such as being the defender of the fleet? especially when long range "torpedoes" are the primary weapon, a drone armed with a lot of PDCs is your perfect defense given the PDC's limited range.
Artruis Joew. Yeah, except they can. Perhaps you watched that battle and just blinked during the multiple scenes when torpedoes were used specifically to shoot down other torpedoes.
@HMSBlackPrince why would you need life support? why does it even have to be manned? and PDCs are stand alone systems that you can mount on any sized platform.
@@artruisjoew5473 plenty of missiles today engineered to intercept anti-ship/surface missiles so torpedoes just being the same with a fancy name, no reason they cannot intercept. Otherwise the major question in SF is how the propulsion system works and how much fuel does it guzzle or do you need a reactor. As fighters need to come back and as in space you go in one direction forever you actually need a lot more fuel to double back to base, one way trips with missiles/torpedoes are way easier.
In the Expanse you have ships on constant thrust either accelerating or decelerating so fighters would have major problems keeping up on those vectors. In essence in space thrust to mass ratio is all that matters, a battleship does not have to be slower than a fighter.
The big selling point of aircraft on carriers is that they bypass the limitations of water going vessels, but need to be small and light enough to be airborne. They thus extend the abilities of the ocean going vessels.
All that does not matter in space. All vessels share the same medium (vacuum). Fighters in space are not like aircraft carriers air groups, they would be equivalent to mini PT boats being dragged along by a fleet of warships.
@@artruisjoew5473 Newtonian physics dictates that PDCs must be mounted on a solid platform many times its mass. If you stick a PDC on a platform of equal mass and it swiftly turns 90-degrees in the X and Z axis, then what's really going to happen is the PDC turns 45-degrees in the X and Z axis, and the platform will turn 45-degrees in the opposite directions. This PDC platform will quickly become impossible to move in anything but a straight line, and anything moving in a straight line during realistic space combat is dead in very short order. You could always counter-weight it to cancel the rotational force, but now you've effectively doubled the PDC's mass, at which point you might as well go into the corvette-like ships that First-Pass describes.
Another reason i love the expanse ... its combat is just so different and grounded in tactical reality . although i will not discredit both BSG and Bab5 because in their collective universes fighters are very important and follow an important role . Especially BSG with the need for anti fighter capability's whilest also fighting an enemy incapable of taking them out with capital ship weapons.
I just wish BSG fighters had missiles
Damo2690 Cylons fighters do.
@@caelestigladii vipers can carry too
@@Husker5454 Yers but it is the raiders that regularly carry them.
@@caelestigladii nah not as standard . Only certain raiders carry missiles and nukes . Or we would see the missiles used during the fighting . We only ever see nukes being fired from small flight groups
This is why I say the Donny would tear up those other ships in that vs you were working on a while back. Her PDC were meant for torps moving 1000x the speed of a viper. And her torps and rail guns wouldn’t range the galactic by 10,000X
Then again the donnager has no shields, and much less armor than the galactica. While galactica’s vipers would be torn to shreds, galactica’s flak barrier would screen (somewhat) against incoming torpedoes, and her ballistic artillery would do the trick. Add the fact that the galactica could calculate a micro FTL jump a la the Adama maneuver to close the donnagers range advantage, and I don’t see the donnager winning in a no holds barred fight.
@@tejasraghuram1451 We could take away FTL to even out the physics realism, and give the Galactica the same approximate sublight speed as its Expanse counterparts. Yeah, the Vipers would be shredded in direct combat, but the Galactica could use them to attack and disrupt supply lines with hit and run attacks. While the Galactica could take most Expanse capital ships in a one on one fight, the Expanse navies would bring their entire fleets to bare. All they have to do is inflict damage in each exchange (target the Galactica's engines and weapons systems with their rail guns) and they would bring it down before long.
@@therealist3495 Neither vessel has inertia dampeners so its possible the Galactica could match the donnagers speed. Warships in the expanse are glass cannons as they lack any real armor against heavy weapons. Thus rely heavily on compartmentalizing their systems in order to stay in the fight.
Galactica has also proven it can tank nukes and a massive amount of punishment given its thick armor and while less advanced its sheer volume of PDCs is more then enough to deal with incoming torpedos. Remember in terms of mass the Galactica is well over twice the size of Donnager.
Thus its likely once both ships come to within CQC then the Donnager really doesn't have much of a chance especially since galactica's systems are also heavily redundant.
@@Predator42ID donnager is a battle ship and has all the redundancy it needs. Galatica has the FTL drive and dont need a main drive as powerfull. Donnager has the epsteen drive wich is a weapon in itself. It can push G's to kill all aboard.. and unless the FTL drive can be used to match velocity the donnager will just go out of range almost immediately.
@@tejasraghuram1451 It's stated in the book and the show that the Donnager could withstand a direct hit from a nuke (at least as well as Galactica did). It only went down because of a high level of firepower by ships it could not track and neutralize.
One of the main reasons that fighters are not very viable in space combat is due to the fact that without an atmosphere, it is simply not as feasible to utilize a fighter. Within atmosphere, fighters can use aerodynamics to perform tight turns and leverage lift. Additionally, because of the curvature of the Earth, fighters can also leverage the horizon to get closer to targets.
In space, none of those things apply. If a fighter wanted to get close to a target (say a capital ship), it would basically have to accelerate in a straight line towards it. Which would make it a sitting duck. Also, without the ability to perform combat turns like in atmosphere, if a fighter survived and passed its target, it would now have to flip around and engage thrust to slow down and eventually accelerate back towards its target. Once again, this would make it a sitting duck.
And one additional note: a fighter, being small, would carry very little payload to make it a good weapons platform. As others have noted in the comments, you would be better off firing a salvo of high speed missiles towards a target then a squadron of fighters.
The validity of fighters entirely depends on the state of technology in each universe.
Best example is the use of blades in Dune, where a lower tier of technology was required to exploit the deficiency of an advanced one.
No.. there is no scenario where they would really make sense.
@@jonothandoeser Yes you've made a truly compelling argument based on your knowledge of physics, warfare and future technology, all of which you left out of your post.
@@TheNerdForAllSeasons no no, hes got a point. We should seriously consider the data he hasnt presented.
Lol
It's fairly difficult to posit a set of physically realistic technologies that would make one-man fighters and carriers viable in futuristic space combat. Most of them trend into highly exotic technologies such as inertial control, for which we have no basis at all in modern physics, or incredibly harsh approaches such as fully cybernetic weapons, where the pilot is permanently integrated as a 'component' of the craft with little or no life support necessary.
A fully AI operated fighter would also be more viable - though the functional difference between that and a drone or very smart missile becomes mostly a matter of word-play.
Quite frankly, it becomes somewhat difficult to posit a combat role for HUMANS in space at all, if AI continues to develop at a reasonable pace. An AI driven battle-cruiser would likely pack a great deal more firepower and maneuverability than any human crewed ship in a similar mass range.
Even Star Trek runs into this problem, given that their ship's computers tend to make the crew themselves look like a bunch of low grade morons.
@@Vastin The entire first portion of your post is literally "From our position several centuries away from when this debate will likely be settled, I can't figure out the technological advancement of an entire civilization."
So thats not a problem with fighters, it's a problem with you.
The second half is just stupidity. Human beings are not going to wait on the ground in VR chairs while we let AI do our exploring and diplomacy for us. We literally are not wired that way.
They’d have to be drones... the G Force would kill a human
we see this when Draper and Avasarala are attempting to flee in the Razorback, the acceleration nearly killed Avasarala, and while draper could withstand more, even she would have reached her limits, and thats just going in a "straight line", imagine trying evasive actions and combat turns at those speeds
Like Enders game
Human craft fighting other human craft would be as comparable as it is on Earth within the atmosphere. But humans fighting drones would be a G-force disaster!
The first force with any ingenuity would take on human fighters with AI fighters (or drone ships) and easily wipe them out. After that, pretty much no one would be interested in piloting a starfighter anymore.
actually, drones shaped like the Razoback, covered with stealth material, equipped with PDCs in the corners of the base of the pyramid and missiles instead of crew compartment might be reasonable. Such a ship would have much better thrust to weight ratio, then your ordinary missile. Basically, use them as a reusable first stage of a missile, fly fast towards enemy, deploy missiles and get away.
The only reason to have fighters/interceptors in battles at sea was that no warship, no matter how big their guns, could fire the distance that fighters could cover. Even if they could, at a great distance the curve of the Earth puts targets beyond sight, so you would need forward spotting by an aircraft or light ship to direct guns. But again, no gun could fire hundreds of miles, so you'd need fighters and bombers to carry out a long-range strike.
But in space, ships could have direct line of sight in most cases, and the major weapons they carry can fire immense distances. The only reason to have a fighter or small craft is in areas where a planet or asteroid might block direct line of sight. So there might be some use for small attack craft, but their use would be greatly minimized.
you nailed it, fighters are only useful in planets atmosphere, they dont make much sense in empty space
spaceships will dominate space combat with super long range capabilities, no fighter will survive
you know fighters can do more than just bomb a ship right? unmanned sensor platforms acting as ultra long range radar and signal relay stations, unmanned interceptors to defend against torpedoes. in the expanse's universe fighters are actually very viable as interceptor platforms seeing how torpedo is the primary weapon at long range.
It wouldn’t be how we imagine fighters right now tho. It’s very likely these “fighters” would be unmanned either fully autonomous or remotely controlled platforms. There’s no way a human would be capable of withstanding the G-forces require to intercept a torpedo going at the speeds they do in the expanse.
@@artruisjoew5473 fighters started being used in naval combat mainly for over the horizon detection and firepower
in space you dont have an horizon
unless you wanna send something in thick planetary atmospheres like earth, venus and titan
@@zazugee your sensor still has limits and fighters can extend your sensor range or spot targets behind cover.
I think the closest thing to a fighter sizewise is a racing pinnace, just imagine a modified racing pinnace with weapons attached to the hull, it would still be ineffective against PDC targeting systems.
Came here to make that point. lol
The book 1 have a fight against 2 "Interceptor class" ships that have only 2 torpedoes and a railgun in thot station. But the TV show replaced them with a single Stealth frigate to cut CGI.
@@Angel24Marin The 'inteceptors' from the book are both Amun-Ra class vessels as well. The dual torp launcher and railgun is the load out carried by the Amun-Ra Stealth vessels.
@@L8ugh1ngm8n1 They already saw the ship that killed the Canterbury, the ones of the Donnager and the one in the asteroid hidden by Julie Mao. When they attack the station and the hot spot turn to be two smaller ships Alex say "New ship type" and the description
and? you all completely ignore the other function of fighters: as missile interceptors. using unmanned ship with extreme agility and loaded with PDCs, fly them out well ahead of your own ship, it will be able to intercept a lot of missiles.
It seems like a lot of the comments talking about how space fighters could make sense are more or less describing either torpedoes or something like the Patrol Destroyers. Small platforms for fire support, force projection, and missile interception. I think first pass even talked about the patrol destroyers like that in his donnager battle royal video, where the PDs just stick to the mothership to overlap the PDC fields and "intercept" more missiles.
I think the Razorback is about as close to a fighter as we're going to get, and even then if you armed it, it would be closer tactically to a PT boat. they had more in common with rum running boats from prohibition era with torpedoes strapped on.
operationally, you'd run fast to get in missile range, launch something big, turn and burn before they can fire back.
The Expanse is the BEST science fiction show to date!
Agreed!
Before even watching the video, I will say the answer is: because engine technology in The Expanse means that frigates and battleships are already capable of exceeding the crew's acceleration tolerance.
Fighters make sense in a world where engines cannot accelerate a ship more than 3 or 4 G of acceleration. In that context, a fighter is a way of creating a combat vessel that pares down all the unnecessary "extra weight" of things like crew quarters, food and water stores, spare parts stores, etc. It carries just what is needed for combat, allowing it to devote a higher portion of it's mass to engines, weapons, and fuel.
After watching the entire series of the expense the answer to this question should’ve been obvious I just didn’t see it until you pointed it out. Thank you.
One other thing is recovery of damaged or disabled fighters would be a major undertaking as each and every fighter would be on a different vector and need to be tracked down individually.
Not to mention its in pieces
You forgot the SA-43 Hammerhead in this group of Newtonian fighters. From Space Above and Beyond.
Newtonian Fighters, I like that! Also yes, I definitely forgot those ones. I’m planning on doing SAaB videos in the future, I’ll probably put a spotlight the Hammerhead in them :)
Nice to see someone remembers that show.
(From a 45 second clip) They execute maneuvers that look like what a plane does, but in space - accelerating based on aerodynamic forces, in a direction that is not opposite the direction their engines are pointing. That would make them fake space planes, the opposite of Newtonian Fighters. A Newtonian Fighter has to rotate to re-orient itself before it can accelerate in a new direction unless it has main engines pointing in multiple directions.
@@cmatlack82 The fighter as hundreds of small reaction thruster ports all over it's skin. If I'm not mistaken they even covered that in the show.
@@cmatlack82 So would that make it a non-Newtonian Fighter? Does its sci-fi get briefly harder if you smack it? :)
"Why and when would we ever use space fighters?"
The short answer?
"Becaauze its c0000000L"
The rule of cool
Bombers. You put torpedoes on long range bombers. what counters that? Fighters.
And because MORE FIREPOWER.
Seriously the counter arguments read like a who is who of "carriers will never amount to anything" nonsense we had prior to world war 2, remind me how that went for the Germans or Japanese again?
@@SpartakMs83 so called long range bombers to be truly long range become Corvettes. The amount of torpedo's, reaction mass, life support and other systems required for long range operations to be worthwhile would cause the size of such a vessel to rapidly increase. How would they be countered? A fuck ton of missiles, railgun rounds and PDC cannons. No fighters required. There is no advantage to a fighter which requires on average 4x as much delta V as a missile.
@@jorenvanderark3567 more firepower?? Wasted resources manpower and material. Autonomous drones sure, but the fact is that humans are becoming less and less crucial to fighting our own wars. Realistically manned crews will exist only on larger vessels, and even then, the majority of the ships systems will be automated. E.g. in the expanse the PDCs are automated and merely overseen by an officer who can prioritize targeting. Fighters in space make no economic or tactical sense, no matter how cool the concept seems.
So fighters are only really best used inside of an atmosphere. Makes sense.
One downside: Lasers have a range of over one hundred kms even today - their theoretical effective ranges are up in the high hundreds or low thousands of kms. Your space fighter would have to hide from anything in orbit, or have its wings blasted off.
@Brent Thomson 100km of atmosphere should not be no problem for a futuristic laser, as long as you pick the right frequency of laser and the atmospheric conditions are conducive.
A 500kw laser (Our most powerful today is 150kw) with a 14 meter wider mirror , 80% duty cycle at 150km can vaporise 282mm of titanium in 150ms (atmospheric distortion aside). A single shot should be enough to cripple even an armored plane, and you'd get many.
@Brent Thomson You're right that waste heat is a significant problem for a star ship. Hard to get rid of. Two dozen successive shots from a 500kw laser should be easy enough to deal with though, which should be enough to take out a whole squadron if you're lucky.
@@shrakaez, make it so tech makes lasers redundant
Thank you, very well done. Fighters were the product of living in a time when the only control system you could put in a small weapons platform that could handle real combat was a human brain, meaning somebody had to actually fly this thing themself. In earlier scifi, we couldn't imagine getting around that yet, not even in the future, so a lot of stories were written involving these different kinds of starfighters. As of now, we're still in such a time, barely (but see below). It was unimaginable that a computer could do the job, either on-board or remote. We are already in the real world now very close to the point where either one would be possible -- that a drone being operated by an onboard computer or even under remote control could be fully competent in combat, without the limitations or risks of having a human pilot on board. And isn't that really what The Expanse's torpedoes are -- computer-piloted drones? In the real world, it won't be long before there's just no point to any advanced military having planes with human fighter pilots.
Except drones can be hacked or jammed. It's already happening. Then your air force is down or worse, turned against you. Even a fraction of a second of lag can change a battle. Just ask any gamer. And when we start talking interstellar combat, those risks increase with range.
Drones will always have their place, but you will still need fighters with pilots in them. There are too many ways for things to go wrong with anything else, even AI. Just look at the movie Stealth. The AI wasn't inherently evil, it just learned the wrong lessons.
Fighters in sci fi are a product of equating space combat with (ww2) naval combat - pure and simple.
@@andrewholdaway813 Maybe, but given the right tech and tactics, they'd still have a use.
@@forestwells5820
In reality they couldn't exist.
In sci fi fighters 'fly' and manouevre like aircraft whilst 'capital ships' and fighter 'carriers' lumber around like well, ships.
That distinction would not exist in space.
@@andrewholdaway813 So don't have either one. I don't. My fighters dink, dunk, flip and slide like a Star Fury or Viper even though they look like planes. My capital ships are also pretty quick and nimble for ships their size. Some are slower than others, size will still affect that, but they still move pretty well. Just think how big the Enterprise D and E were, and yet they still flew with a good amount of speed and agility.
Fighters will always be smaller, faster, and more nimble than any large ship. And thanks to advanced ECM systems, they can be hard to target as well. A well armed fighter could still threaten a capital ship. Can you imagine if an A-10 could hover and point its gun any direction it wants, but move as fast as an F-22? Even destroyers would have a hard time with that one.
It's all about taking the time and effort to build the world. Just as an R&D department would take the time and effort to explore possible technologies to make them useful, and then militaries would develop tactics to use them well. One starfighter with heavy weapons and defensive shields could never take on a capital ship. Send 35 of them, have them rotate around each other to lessen the pressure on their shields, and you've got a serious threat.
The science fiction writer Ian M. Banks offers an alternative philosophy in his culture novels. City sized, top of the line sentient AI battleships exist within The Culture (the protagonist civilisation), which are known as GSV's. They are extremely formidable, but the most effective war fighters are the specialised AI ships with particularly violent or warrior like personalities that are much smaller. These in turn break up into smaller modular armed units when in combat.
The logic is that the status of a very large ship like a GSV is binary, it is either destroyed or not. Multiple ships can swarm, and catastrophic damage is contained to single entities.
Personally I think large ship combat looks better though.
Another reason for no fighters is that the primary advantage of a fighter in space is its maneuverability. I know the video did cover that to some degree but I think it missed a pretty important point. In the world of the expanse, a ship's maneuverability really comes down to acceleration, which is literally the measure of how fast an object is changing its current course. A corvette class light frigate like the Rocinante can already accelerate so fast that it would kill anyone onboard, so making a smaller, more lightly armed craft that can accelerate even faster doesn't really make sense, at least not if you want to have a pilot onboard, and the distances we're talking about makes drones problematic unless you trust them to be completely autonomous.
long range drones arnt possible because of [fusion] drive, no miniature version possible
zazugee well it depends how you define miniature. If you took the drive of the roci and and removed any areas necessary for crew to live and work, then replaced them with an automated flight computer and weapons storage, you’d have a drone with a better thrust to mass ratio than the roci, and no crew to worry about, meaning it could accelerate significantly faster. The trouble with a drone in the Expanse is that light delay makes instantaneous control impossible, meaning you’d have to be willing to let the drone choose its own target and fire weapons completely autonomously, something militaries today at least are extremely hesitant about.
I was going to make a similar comment, and bringing it up with relation to a similar explanation from The Lost Fleet series. In that series, thanks to inertial compensators, destroyers and other similarly sized craft are about as manoeuvrable as it's possible to make a spaceship, and they're capable of mounting much more and much heavier weaponry than any fighter-sized craft.
@HMSBlackPrince At least in modern times, any fighter aircraft uses missiles as their primary armament, so if you think about it, not having fighters is just skipping an extra step.
@@zazugee, considering that the torpedoes use the fusion drive as their main propulsion unit, your assertion makes no sense.
Huh. This was a pretty cool breakdown. I had always kinda wondered why there were no "fighters", but there is the Rocinante, which they call a "gunship".
I love this show can you break down how the ships are designed/ the layout of them like an office building. I also hope they explain Ceres and how they could spin it without it breaking up
Very slowly is my bet.
The general idea is that if you build the ships vertically, where the floors are parallel to the engines, this is what creates artificial gravity. So if you accelerate your engines at g or something close to it, you can have gravity. That's why everything had to be strapped down whenever they turned off the engines. Most other TV shows just gloss this over as "artificial gravity" without even explaining how, or if they're lucky they'll have the 2001-style spinning ring... which works, but is really bulky and would get immediately torn to shreds in a space battle.
@@geraldwatts5492 Expanse ships that have decks parallel to the axis of thrust and grav decks, like the Edward Israel, tend to be non-combat vessels (such as a science ship) and the grav decks are deployable. They can be retracted if the ship is preparing a course where maneuvers might make the spinning deck impractical.
If i remember correctly, it was said in one of the novella's that they hardened the surface of Ceres (Somehow, Probably Epstein Drives) before they spun it up, so that they rotational forces wouldn't break the dwarf planet apart. And that was after it had been cleaned out by Earth and Mars.
Read the books, the show gets many things very wrong, especially dealing with high g thrust. The books do a great explanation of lots of design questions.
But basically any long range ship is built similar to an office building with the base at the engines. These ships spend most all their existance under acceleration, so they mimic gravity from the direction of the engines, hence the office building configuration.
Thanks for mentioning Babylon 5! I hope we see a versus with one of their ships. :]
This reminds me about the viability of fighters in Halo. The ones that work better in space battles are basically 30-60m. Archer Missiles and Plasma Torpedoes has some insane acceleration feats but somehow the fighters are still relevant. XD
You earned a sub with this. It's the same thing I've been saying, I even left an excessively long comment on an hour video from the Templin Institute on how I think they're wrong about the viability of carriers in space navies. It's a great video, but they assume space navies would use the same doctrines of earth navies and be centered around carrier groups.
Completely on the mark, dropships are the closest and their main use is to deliver troops not anti-ship missions.
Lasers and very high velocity kinetics are likely to be common, while fighting at extreme ranges. You'd never get close enough to actually see your enemy.
Laser beams lose strength at extreme distances
And kinetic projectiles that either miss or perforate their targets will continue on forever or until it hits something…a planet, moon, asteroid, cargo/passenger ship, etc.
"Why Are There No Fighters in The Expanse?" -shows PDG's BRRRTing down torpedos-
There was a good analysis a few years ago (can't remember the channel or title, sadly): aircraft carriers on earth work, because they operate on the boundry for two media, air and water. All ships are bound to the denser medium, giving them an advantage in possible size, endurance and loadout, while planes operate in the thinner medium, giving them the advantage in speed and maneuverability while also extending the range far beyond beyond visual range of their carrier. In space, none of these apply. Thus, space fighters make no sense as a concept. Bigger ships can go further, faster (since they can sustain acceleration longer) and take more hits, while missles, projectile and energy weapons face far fewer range limitations and visual range is infinite unless blocked (certainly far longer than any effective weapons range). So you might say the Expanse get's it more right than wrong.
"Yo Dawg its your boy XIBIT, we put front facing PDCs on your Razorback so you can shoot at things while pulling mad G's in style. We also took out that silly airlock and put in a guided stealth mine launcher. Also, we installed a pharmaceutical grade fruit press so you get the freshest juice in the system. You have officially been pimped"
Beltalowda!
*chunky salsa ahoy*
I never even noticed or considered that. But damn, I still love me some Viper (or x-wing) combat.
Manned fighters are becoming increasingly obsolete on Earth, because of the inherent g-force limitations of the pilot. Manned planes can no longer hope to evade SAMs or air-to-air missiles, and can't hope to beat an unmanned drone in a dogfight.
Not to mention the cost, time, and restrictive physical and mental qualifications for fighter pilots. About the only thing fighter pilot conditioning is good for is figuring out who the best potential candidates for future astronauts are.
Granted we still use close ground support aircraft. I dont think the A- 10 counts as a fighter.
Long story short we can train a drone pilot for a fraction of the time and cost of a fighter pilot and if he fucks up he doesnt die and you dont need to wait for him to come back in order to chew him out.
@@Cryogenius333 No, the A-10 is a light bomber, hence the A designation. Yeah, you'll still probably need manned bombers though, just to avoid civilian casualties in sensitive ops.
@humandxp Not everything is hackable.
@humandxp Fine... Then Hack into the Swiss Bank! There's PLENTY of money in there from all over the world! All the incentive that anyone would need!
First off, hacking is not nearly as easy as the movies make it look. It can take a hacker months to crack a system. You dont' have that kind of time with a drone.
Second, some of the more advanced drones - and eventually all of them - can change to an autonomous mode, in which they will follow preprogrammed instructions to carry out the mission with no user intervention necessary. All jamming would do in that instance is prevent the drone from being recalled.
There are other things that can be done, like controlling the drone from a manned aircraft with a signal with just enough range to reach it. That way the only way to even attempt to hack it would be to get inside of the signal radius first.
After I saw the first space fight in the Expanse where bullets where going through the ship that really put things into perspective. In a more realistic space battle you probably want a medium size ship so it's harder to get shot and it's harder to shoot the things you depend on for survival like air and fuel.
Some spaceships and space fighters in sci-fi are equipped with a type of stealth or jamming system that makes it difficult for missiles and point defense weapons to target and hit at long ranges.
In Stargate, the F-302 fighter-interceptor have a jamming device that makes it invisible to radar.
In Babylon 5, all Minbari ships possess a stealth tech that prevented EA from using their long range guided and targeting systems, and thus were forced to engage at line of sight.
In the Gundam Series (Universal Century), close-range combat is the norm, due to the disruption caused by _Minovsky particles_ towards long-range radar, communication, targeting, and guidance systems.
Imagine a mod for the Expanse in Homeworld.
Why would you make Homeworld worse?
I like the expanse because they've gone so far forward that they've almost gone back to where they started as in, chess like tactics to get the best shot available, like older ship battles in history
I guess the closest thing to fighters in the expanse would be breaching pods and dropships, but since they generally arent armed I dont think they would be considered fighters
Breaching pods aren't armed but Martian dropships are known to have PDCs on them along with machine guns. It's just not on the show since there isn't a real use for them YET.
The breaching pods are a bit of a stretch realism-wise. They could only realistically be used on ships that were already functionally crippled (drives and all weapons disabled), as they would be suicidal to deploy in the face of even the most limited PDC or railgun coverage.
At that point you almost might as well pull up alongside, dock, and breach their airlocks directly.
@@Vastin Coat them with stealth material.
@@NH2112 That helps against radar. Doesn't hide your thrust profile or heat signature unfortunately.
@@Vastin Insulate the thing, for the short time it’ll be in use it shouldn’t warm up too much. The exhaust plume should be an invisible stream of particles all parallel to each other, so the body of the pod will shield it from detection. And other than an assault like in S2E2, how often will they need to make it to the target undetected? Normally they’re used to board enemy ships during or after a fight, there’s no element of surprise.
The only case for something fighter-y in a real physics setting like the expanse is the use of drone swarms to use as torpedo defense and to overwhelm/disable enemy PDC.
Though in most cases, more torpedoes or PDC would be better
I've never read the books, so I wouldn't know lore. Based on the show, perhaps the Epstein Drive is too large to be mounted on a fighter, and less powerful and fuel inefficient powerplants would leave any fighter too short ranged to be of value.
Moreover, it does appear that the rail guns and missiles in the series are either too big to be mounted aboard fighters, or too few could be carried.
If the chain guns (and their associated tracking systems) mounted aboard conventional warships such as Rocinante and Donnager can deal with incoming missiles as easily as is suggested in the series, then fighters would be notably easier targets- because the presence of a pilot would impose G-force limitations on the maneuverability of the fighter craft.
Lastly, rail guns can- in theory- propel their shells at velocities approaching the speed of light. At such speeds, lead on a target is unnecessary. Rail guns could be "locked on" to fighters with the same technology that chain guns use- and that would be that for incoming fighter attacks.
Besides- The Expanse is supposed to be science fiction that's relatively realistic (although it's not completely so), and not science fantasy like Star Wars, with its fighter craft that can engage in turn combats like Second World War era combat aircraft.
Ships like the Roci fill the role of screening bigger ships and support roles, while being able to support itself. Good vid mate!
You missed the logistics of needing the space for the fighter crews, their vehicles, their fuel, their ammunition. There probably wouldn't be enough time to deploy the the fighters and if the mother ship changes it's velocity vector in some major way, the fighters may not have enough fuel to match it in order to return safely to the mothership.
I feel like a drone fighter with a PDC-like gun with a few torpedo-sized drives would be pretty effective. Basically PDC fire from a platform that can accelerate like a torpedo.
Space fighters are impractical but the ones in Battllestar Galactica feels so "real" and cool. Especially the way they maneuver.
Space fighters are basically the doctrine of a aircraft carrier. A aircraft carrier makes sense because it's on the surface of the earth. The map is basically a 2D curved space with an atmosphere and weather that distorts everything. It's 2D and curved, so you can't hit targets too far away directly, and the atmosphere makes guided missiles difficult. That is why you need to position your weapons close to the target. Earlier, battleships were used. As planes became better, bombers and fighter jets are became better than battleships. But planes have a limited range. So to overcome the limited range, carriers just transport those aircraft close enough to the target.
But space is a true 3D battlefield that is also empty. Being 3D you can hit your target directly from anywhere. And it's empty, so nothing slows your projectile down or distorts the target. So the distance becomes basically irrelevant. You can shoot your weapon a million km away and it would have the same impact. No planes/fighters needed. Thus no carriers are needed.
The only problem is that the target could move and dodge your projectile. Guided missiles can track the target and still hit it. But guided missiles can be jammed or shot down. Better use guns or lasers. But you can dodge even a laser if you are far enough away. Solution: guided missiles for long range, lasers for medium range and rail guns or regular guns for close distance.
Fighters and carriers make no sense in space battle. RIP Battlestar Galactica.
I think I remember one of first books say the torpedos could do ~100G, not 1000G. Gs are important in Expanse; ] Thanks, very enjoyable video.
Fighter pilots and the legacy they have brought to military history will inevitably probably be akin to the knights of medieval times, where technology and tactics, whether gunpowder or guided missiles, ultimately will decide the output of combat, not chivalry or flying skills necessarily.
Short answer: because torpedoes are way better
Current fighters are basically missile platforms. If they get to gun range, something has gone wrong (A-10 not included in this)
Since Expanse missiles and rail guns (heck ASTEROIDS) have basically unlimited range, there is no real need to get the missile "closer" to the target.
Fighters would just be slower torpedoes, so easy targets for flechette torpedoes and PDCs. Wouldn’t stand a chance really
They’d be picked off real quick alright.
How did the dropships from the stealth ships make it through donnager fire then?
Point defense drone.... would be a great torpedo/ corvette screen
Watch the background music. Towards the end there it swelled far too much to the point where it was difficult to hear you. The video itself however was quite good. Short. To the point. And most important interesting.
Thank you for letting me know about the background music, definitely will help for future videos :)
Yeah... with PDC's that can shred large ships apart, nuclear torpedoes with advanced speed and maneuverability, and rail guns that can reliably hit targets several AU away is pretty much a death sentence for any fighter ship. Heck, Bobbie and Avaserala nearly got wiped out in their tiny ship and the only reasons they survived was because the ship was a very fast racer and because Holden saved their asses.
I would have many fighters carrying torps and do long range sorties and retreat
Fire for effect
The torpedo are capable of making it without the fighters. Remember Torpedos in the expanse are essentially crewless disposable epstein powered ships that exclusively carry a payload. The second you add a pilot, the "fighter" would already be less capable then the torpedo.
In fact if you add fighters to the mix the missiles would take longer to reach their target since the pilots would only be pulling a fraction of the Gs that the actual weapons are capable of.
Also while they convey this horribly in the show, a long range sortie could be weeks or months of travel since distances in the solar system are so massive. Even with the epstein drive.
You got it correct in the first 30 seconds! Fighters are a means of extending the range + accuracy + presence + speed of weapon systems......and in space, they have no place.
I reccomend doing a video exclusively on the space combat of the game Children of a Dead Earth. It is similar to that of The Expanse, but with no Epstein drives and drone fighters see use.
I really like that idea!
You made perfect sense. I even thought about that at one point watching the show.
Honestly, the only real purpose I could see fighters being used for in The Expanse would be to deploy and destroy opponent ship PDCs so friendly torpedoes won't be shot down, possibly attacking railgun hard points if they get the chance, and intercepting enemy fighters to keep them from doing the same if they existed. They would really be more like "fighter-bombers" and need to be extremely fast and have stealth though. However, I can't imagine a human pilot would be able to actually do this without getting shot down by the computer-aided aiming of the PDC's first. Perhaps stealth-coated drone fighters with miniature Epstein drives and affixed guns would be a more realistic option for that role, but as things are presented, it doesn't seem super necessary. Small ships like corvettes seem to basically take the place of fighters in effect anyway for CQB when exchanging PDC fire even if those ships are still kilometers away. That is the realistic space equivalent of a dogfght anyway.
All of that said, I do still love air combat and old-school dogfights and find it fun to see in space even if it wouldn't really make sense. But that is probably best left to less hard sci-fi and I'm okay with that.
No, their only use would be to escort dropships/ pods to planetary surfaces and provide planet cap functions that the ship cannot. They would in fact be modified dropships/ pods geared for ground support instead of troop transport.
Makes sense. Most naval and aerial warfare is already conducted from BVR today. AMRAAMs have a range of over 160km, a 5" cannon mounted on a destroyer could accurately hit something as far as 37km away, CIWS PDCs can hit things as far as 5km away, in the vacuum of space with no air resistance, engagement ranges would be way greater. Dogfighting a la Star Wars hasn't really been a thing since the first Sidewinder was developed in the 50s, and it's only becoming more and more rare.
I hear you, Deus Ex music :)
There’s another thing to think about. Aircraft carriers on Earth are powerful because the planes they carry are traveling through a much thinner medium (air) than the carrier itself (water). Thus while even a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier tops out at 35 knots or so, the planes it carries can break the speed of sound using a reasonably small amount of fuel(for a few hours). But if you replace “fighter” with speedboats that also travel on the water, they’ll be too slow to dodge another ship’s ballistic weapons. In fact we tried multi-man speedboats with torpedoes as early as the First World War. They were effective for a while, but became obsolete with the introduction of the Destroyer. A much larger ship that was just as fast(same power to weight ratio) and brimming with guns and torpedoes of its own. Invented to hunt the PT boats, they quickly took over the role of fast torpedo delivery because they could take a few hits and still get close to their targets.
They cant make reactors small enough for fighters....its simple.
Torpedoes in The Expanse also have enough range to do interplanetary transfer burns, as well as being able to decelerate from a solar orbit to drop into the sun when they destroyed samples of protomolecule by putting them into the torpedo. So it's reasonable to assume small craft also have sufficient propulsion systems that could work on fighters. However, all the torpedoes in the expanse are multipurpose and programmable, so they do blur the line of drone and missile, making manned fighters unable to keep up.
A fighter doesn’t have to be small in space, there’s no aerodynamic drag or gravity to contend with. Inertia is the only force that acts on the ship, which will have more of an effect on a more massive ship but only at initial acceleration or deceleration. Once inertia is overcome a large ship will accelerate or decelerate the same as a small ship, given equal G.
The expanse DESERVES a continuation in any shape or form. The universe is rich, vast and has a lot of potential.
Your subs does not make sense. This video is good
Im sure I replied to this ages ago, but here I go again:
The video is of course correct, however assuming a military fighter was roughly the size of the racing pinnace that Bobbie and Chrisjen escape on they could still be made tactically useful in certain circumstances if made properly.
Design a pinnace sized or slightly smaller modular utility craft, with two smaller point defence cannon and deploy a screen of these, and you have first line of defence against missiles.
You send the smaller ship ahead, it deals with the first longer ranged salvos, then breaks away out of PDC range.
It wouls only serve to project PDC coverage, but used right it would serve to deny range to the enemy.
Plus once the battle starts to devolve into a close range fight a group of these could rush back into range and use swarm tactics.
Yes enemy PDCs would be a danger, but once the big ships are busy shooting eachother there would be an opening.
Add a small supply of missiles as well, and these would be the equivelent of patrol torpedo boats in WW2
overly explained. Simply put, the expanse is grounded sci-fi. In real world terms, "interceptors" or "fighters" as we imagine them in Sci Fi would have no real world value. for one, the powerplants needed (even in the expanse's rule-set) would make it a pointless endeavour. The other thing is the usefulness. Where would you actually use fighters? With beautiful heat exhausts - any IR tracking weaponry would render them inert as soon as they start up. being fighters they'd be way too small to house any countermeasures against that. That's already within the fictionalised drives setup that the expanse novels describe. In any event, the Epstein drives as described in the novels do not come across as compact devices. It leans toward either fusion or fission as they are powered by what they described as "reaction mass" (it's just a copout because they didnt want to go into making shit up - so they kept it vague so as to pass scientific scrutiny..actually). All of this can be ignored if you consider the weaponry that is used - all of which are grounded in reality. PDC's, rail guns, torpedoes - none of which, other than the PDCs, would be useful on a fighter. And even if you did put the PDCs on a fighter, the reality is (and the expanse keeps to that religiously) is that the counter-forces provided by firing those types of weapons on a small craft powered by some conventional drive would make the craft behave like a rubber ball in a tumble dryer. the expanse actually sticks to what is understood in physics and they take very little liberty, even when it comes to the proto-molecule, when telling a story. This isn't BSG or Trek or whatever. This is actually done with an enormous amount of research which is under appreciated.
Your explanation is way better than this video for sure.
Expanse ships are powered by a fairly standard fusion reactor. Reaction mass is just water, and it's used to move the ship in accordance to Newton's third law. The fuel pellets for the reactor itself can run the ship for decades.
Another question is why are there no unmanned warships? We see in The Expanse battle of the Razorback ship speed is limited only by human endurance. We see unmanned Supply ships. All of their targeting and courses are done by computers. If command ability is somehow out of reach of AI, then you still have an extremely impressive escort frigate. Not to mention all the room you save from not having hallways and human support equipment.
Manned star-fighters will never be a thing. Unmanned star-fighters might be. When most people think of star-fighters they think. "Can this kill a battleship?" The answer is obviously no. Torpedo planes or fighter bombers do not work if you have have effective long-range missiles. Can a fighter shoot down a missile? Well PDC's can shoot them down. So your star-fighter is a PDC with an engine. Deploying these between you and the enemy in a fighter screen would be an effective way to force the enemy to spam missiles.
Escorting missiles is another role it could preform. However without anti ballistic missiles which I have never seen in The Expanse it would be kind of pointless.
So the Honorverse is also missile based and introduces the fighter-like Shrike LACs (Light Attack Craft) which are small, shuttle-craft sized vessels intended to close within "knife-fighting" range and attack capitol ships with missiles and a single graser. The advantage of the Shrikes is their stealth and spreading out the capitol ship's ECM.
In the Expanse, Martian Stealth tech would make a fighter craft in the Expanse viable again. Small signature, maneuverable, unable to be detected, and capable of rapid acceleration in multiple directions to throw off a pursuing missile or evade defensive fire.
The Expanse showed that a cluster of smart torpedoes can do the same as a (kamikaze) fighter without the need to risk/sacrifice a pilot.
I think the other reason is that in B5 and BSG they have FTL drives so the fighters can operate independently knowing that if they get in trouble help is never to far away. In the Expanse, each craft has to be fully self sufficient which is harder the smaller you are, less room for O2, ammunition, food.
The only way I see fighters working in The Expanse is as one man missile carriers. The racing ship Razorback is probably closest in design, imagine a squadron of them each fitted with a pair of missiles. They lurk near an asteroid, comet or moon to avoid detection then all launch their missiles together at an approaching enemy capital ship then just turn and run, leaving their missiles to do their job or at least delay the enemy while the fighters escape. They would be closer to 1960s jet interceptors that were not built for dogfighting than either WW2 propeller driven fighters or the modern agile aircraft. The thing is that these craft would be useless for any other function whereas small multi-crewed ships can undertake a variety of missions and are thus more economical to operate.
Except missiles themselves can already do that, but much faster without human risks. I don’t want to spoil anything for you as I don’t remember the order, so consider this as a warning. In one episode, Naomi stopped the torpedo that supposed to be fired into the sun alone with the protomolecules, instead keep it hidden under an Astroid. Razorback is fast for a ship(expansive tho) but no where near as fast as a missile. Fire and run will probably result in pd shooting down all missiles alone with all the razorbacks. The only scenario I can think of to make a fighters work is basically design them into escape pods with weapons attached, easy to adapt atmospheric flight, so it’s kinda jack of all trades that is able to operate on a different medium than the mothership. But few planets have atmosphere like earth tho.
I got one for you...... What about "Why are there no Fighter Drones?" something that could act like a torpedo maneuverability wise but be loaded with a grip of torpedo's pdc's, etc.... that could rapidly enter combat distances at extremely high rates of speed + maneuverability to get under another ships targeting capabilities with extreme firepower while the mothership maintained a safe distance out of combat ranges but are removed from the flaw of liquifying the pilot if they were present? This would increase combat efficiency dramatically, without entering the main ship into as much danger
The one thing that could work, the Razorback-like ship with a forward facing (but turreted) PDC for anti-piracy. With this, you wouldn't need a hard burn on a capital ship. Send it out, take out the drive, drop back and let the capital ship take over. Also small enough to be carried by large freighters. You wouldn't even need a life support system necessarily, just wear a vac suit. Extremely limited yes, but possibly effective in an anti-piracy role. And there's no outrunning it for the pirates.
At the ranges ships in space could engage each other a fighter would totally impractical. Fighters would just be glass cannons which may get a shot or two off before being destroyed in one shot if the pilot was lucky, but would most likely just get wiped out before engaging the enemy.
With high powered ordnance being shot across vast distances you'd be better off in a fast manoeuvrable well armoured Corvette that could soak up the damage caused by any weapons that made it past your point defence.
You are right on point with your assessment in this video.
Prob will be swarms of combat drones, although once heavy jamming is used, they'll be reserved for short ranges, as barriers, or needing to be guided by a smaller and manuverable manned ship.
I think the key thing about fighter aircraft is they travel through air. On earth aircraft can travel very fast (and far) but have the disadvantage of limited endurance. Unlike ships which don't travel particularly fast, but do have good endurance. So we see ships supporting aircraft to gain the advantages of both. None of these dynamics are present in space. In space all craft can travel fast (there's no resistance) and there is no need to take on the disadvantage of limited endurance to do it. As such I never though that the fighters/carrier mechanism made any sense in space. In many ways I think combat space craft would be more like submarines, which I think is captured really well in The Expanse.
There is also an good explanation in "the lost fleet" book series.
Basically the fighters are too small:
- they can't do stealth, since there is nothing to hide in space, and they can't carry the stealth systems
- they aren't faster than destroyers, because it's all a matter of mass vs. thrust and bigger ships can have bigger engines.
- they aren't more manouverable, all ships travel in the same medium which offers zero resistance, which makes it a matter of mass vs. thrust again
- there aren't any dogfights, in space the ships are simply too fast for human reflexes and battles are mostly firing runs by passing fleets.
Absolutely correct analysis.
The Razorback was probably as close to our idea of a fighter as they have...
In the books, the corvette Tachi, later Rocinante, is explained to serve the role of a torpedo bomber, that is launched from the mothership.
So like the Scipio Africanus, the traditionlal role of fighters is filled by the likes corvettes, pinnaces and patrol boats.
EDIT: I jus read the battle of the Toth station. It is defended by two stealth ships, smaller than the rocinante, that are described as "light intercepters". Small fast maneuverable ships with a single front-mounted railgun and only loaded with about 3 torpedoes.
If you’ve read The Expanse books you’d see how combat is handled much like WW2 surface ships and submarines (U-Boats) calculating fire positions for vehicles in constant motion. Large distances and often a “one or two” chance at getting your fire solution correct. Or sub against sub type combat. A place where even as air cover evolved, fighters lost their edge when the subs go deep. Thus getting us back to hide, seek, find, calculate, style combat.
All this to say, yes, your video is pretty spot on. Also how awesome the books are as well as the show!
A lot of us came from the studio that did B5. Which is why the combat concepts evolved quickly with us and the writer’s for Firefly. They later helped make us a good fit for the desires of BSG. Good times!
Another reason fighters work in other sci-fi is because those shows model terrestrial (earth bound) navies in space. In a terrestrial navy aircraft are much faster than ships, thus giving you a legitimate long range strike option. In the Expanse their drive technology enables all manned ships to be equally fast. For the space need on a ship to operate and service a star fighter you could probably have dozens of torpedoes.
The problem with missiles in space: they would require a lot more fuel to be as maneuverable as missiles in air, as their only way to apply acceleration is thrust. Air missiles can use air resistance and lift to change their trajectory. With spaces missiles being less maneuverable, and having much larger relative speeds, I doubt they would be very reliable against a target that is itself actively moving. They simply could not change their trajectory quick enough to hit a randomly moving target.
I feel like it's possible to fulfil the aesthetic vacuum left by fighters with intervention/stealth interceptors being somewhere between the racing ships mentioned in the series and a fully decked out battle ship.
These would obviously not suit the roll of "fighter class" but could serve as a kind of marine / saboteur deployment mechanism for a more diplomatically motivated interception like a high velocity swarm of "dropships" launched from a greater distance with a higher ∆V / t requirement.
I'm half and half on fighter viability in the Expanse world. I understand and agree with the main arguments against them but part of me thinking that carrier doctrine could be viable if the goal was to spread out your forces as much as possible in defense or project your force well. Small fighters/ships with single railguns or loadouts of missiles, that act more as mobile long range fire platform rather than dogfighting space craft. The giant capitol ships to me seem to consolidate a lot of firepower and resources into a single unit that could be taken out. Although, I still feel like carrier could suffer from the same issues as if they get ambushed before launched their fighters. Likely, a large force of corvette sized vehicles is the best approach. As it has built separation and each ship can still act individually rather than being tied to a carrier. Idk just food for thought. Such a cool world
I think that drone combat in the expanse is extremely feasible especially if the drones were stealth capable and supported by a human manned Radar gunship for command and control. That said their main goal would be to occupy the no mans land between star-ships and provide a mi of anti missile screening and advanced weapon telemetry by triangulating the range to threats. At most humans would pilot a heavy bomber closer to a gunship in size.
I mean tbh, with the maneuverability and sizing of ships in the Expanse, fighters don't make a ton of sense because the Roci is basically a fighter. Granted, Expanse capital ships are much smaller than many sci fi settings, but even a Donnager can flip and burn with no issue. So there are no slow maneuvering massive capital ships for fighters to exploit an agility gap. And of the smaller ships, many, on the size of say frigates or corvettes, operate with the agility of a fighter already. Sure the Roci can have a crew of over ten, but it can also be operated by four people. So is that a capital ship or a fighter/gunship?
The missiles and defensive artillery against fighter ships are only effective as its anti countermeasure tech. So fighters are feasible as long as they can jam, disrupt or misdirect the star ships targeting array. Even in the "Expanse" counter measure tech is used to redirect missiles and defense artillery e.g flees etc.
On Earth, fighters have a distinct advantage over capitol ships: they operate in the air. This allows them to move much faster and attack from above (the "high ground" as it were). The closest thing to a fighter on the water would be a PT boat and you'll notice we don't have them anymore (at least, not as weapons against capitol ships).
PDC's engage at very close ranges. Capital ships are not manueverable so a fighter could easily fire their own cannons at mid range not only while manuevering but with sufficient time to avoid PDC fire. Meanwhile their cannon fire would be hard to avoid for a capital ship. They would also be able to launch their own lighter missiles which would be more manueverable than the heavy torpedos launched by capital ships against each other. Lighter weapons fired enmasse are what make current fighters effective against seaborne and land based targets compared to the larger cruise missiles launched by those platforms.
We also have lasers which could come into play which could be used to target PDC's or other weapon or aux systems degrading their ability to defend against larger anti-ship missiles.
At the end of the day, the “large” ships in the expanse can accelerate in all directions faster than the crew’s bodies can support. The human body is the limiting factor. Therefore, a smaller ship then offers no agility advance, still limited by a human body. The lack of a squishy human is what makes the missiles effective.