On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 2:06 PM, Greg Nokes <xxxxxx@nokes.name> wrote:
> On Oct 7, 2014, at 12:53 PM, Craig Berry <xxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The idea of a dual-mode vacuum and atmospheric fighter has never made
> sense to me. The optimizations for each of them are so different that
> in combining them you end up with the worst of both worlds
>
>
> I don’t really see that.
>
> TTL-13/14/15 fighters are probably just armored wedges with gravatic
> controls. No need for an airframe. If you get hit hard enough to damage your
> gravitics, you likely are not going to need to be concerned about any sort
> of glide path, much likely anything else.
>
> Both atmospheric and space are optimizing for low surface area (lighter
> armor) given enough to mount weapons and sensors. Wedge and flattened
> sphere’s seem a great tradeoff.
>
> Also, Space optimized fighters are likely to be as armored as tanks, and as
> well armed. Well, at least CT/MT types. And if you want your pilots to be
> able to have somewhat normal kids, having them well armored and/or shielded
> is essential.
>

I agree that gravitics is the game-changer (no pun intended)

Your comment about 'armored as tanks' also made me think...
I vaguely remember stories about during WWII/Europe, there were
sorties of aircraft (Mustangs?) that would fly in ground-effect over
France, stretching their fuel. They were used as a sort of raiding
cavalry force, cruising around looking for things to shoot up and
being on call to deliver lots of bullets if the infantry yelled for
them.

I can picture fighters being in that role - sort of "heavy-heavy-battle-dress"