Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Viper_63 t1_j6m7r2t wrote

Reply to comment by GiraffeAdditional299 in DARPA wants aircraft that can maneuver with a radically different method by Hypx

The concept of "space fighters" makes little to no actual sense:

http://projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/fighter.php

https://futurewarstories.blogspot.com/2012/05/fws-topics-hard-science-space-fighters.html

8

GiraffeAdditional299 t1_j6n6tu1 wrote

There will always be a need for manned space flight applications, especially when weapons are involved.

1

PotatosAreDelicious t1_j6nqsa7 wrote

Yeah the humans will be in the carrier not in the "fighters". You cant bank off anything in space fighter planes make no sense. Most fights will happen millions of miles away from eachother anyways with sensor based fights and not dogfights.
You already see this in modern fighter jet fights. If you have visual on an enemy fighter jet its already too late. They fire missiles from so far away.

1

GiraffeAdditional299 t1_j6ntxgh wrote

You are excluding a lot of realities. Such as Electronic Warfare: where large complex networks of acquisition and search radars are integrated with thousands of concepts for lock on or break away. Banking, as you stated, is just a method of attitude control with the limitations of design. Not all aeronautical, or aerospace vehicles will need to ‘bank’. You statement is erroneous due to your assumption that the limitations of our current technology will never advance to solve your banking problem.

Not all fighters need to have a human, as such, can be piloted remotely, or autonomous. But as long as war exist my friend, there will always be a soldier on the front. Companies that want security measures for their resource operations in space will rely heavily on automation, but a human presence will always be needed: not just in the carrier.

1