![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Fighters
The development of technology brought back the usage of one-man fighters. The nature of the inertial compensator meant that fighters can achieve far higher acceleration than warships at a much lower power per volume ratio required of their fusion reactor. There was much debate about the feasibility of fighters in modern combat environment due to their small size, and hence much lesser protection as compared to warships, not to mention capital ships. Capital missiles, critics argued, fulfill the role of the traditional fighter well enough.
It is true that without a pilot, there is no need for life support, not to mention a smaller inertial compensator can be utilised, as long as it is power enough to protect the electronics onboard. However, on the flip side, no one has yet been able to program an evasion routine that can simulate that of a combat pilot. Constant telemetry is required to guide CMs to their terminal attack range, while pilots can do that on their own discretion.
There are also issues with regards to the sensor coverage. The nature of the gravity drives employed means that there is a significant fire-control degradation in the rear zone coverage of all warships, and as such, fighter-class missiles are absolutely fatal if they can get into such positions. Furthermore, despite the much shorter range, those missiles are able to pack a higher explosive-to-mass ratio as compared to CMs, due to the less advanced electronics needed. The pilots are the ones mainly involved in evasion and entering optimal firing position. At such close range, point defense becomes negligible.
The development of technology brought back the usage of one-man fighters. The nature of the inertial compensator meant that fighters can achieve far higher acceleration than warships at a much lower power per volume ratio required of their fusion reactor. There was much debate about the feasibility of fighters in modern combat environment due to their small size, and hence much lesser protection as compared to warships, not to mention capital ships. Capital missiles, critics argued, fulfill the role of the traditional fighter well enough.
It is true that without a pilot, there is no need for life support, not to mention a smaller inertial compensator can be utilised, as long as it is power enough to protect the electronics onboard. However, on the flip side, no one has yet been able to program an evasion routine that can simulate that of a combat pilot. Constant telemetry is required to guide CMs to their terminal attack range, while pilots can do that on their own discretion.
There are also issues with regards to the sensor coverage. The nature of the gravity drives employed means that there is a significant fire-control degradation in the rear zone coverage of all warships, and as such, fighter-class missiles are absolutely fatal if they can get into such positions. Furthermore, despite the much shorter range, those missiles are able to pack a higher explosive-to-mass ratio as compared to CMs, due to the less advanced electronics needed. The pilots are the ones mainly involved in evasion and entering optimal firing position. At such close range, point defense becomes negligible.
