From: 'Jet Jaguar'
To: soc.military.starfighters
RE: The entrants are in. A few surprises, and surprise ommissions
---------
The 162's not a glass cannon, not by a longshot. A glass cannon relies on being powerful enough to kill the enemy, before its weakness is exposed. The 162 might not be able to take much in the way of damage, but it doesn't have to. It's got the energy advantage and the maneuverabiliy advantage, it's got control of the engagement, able to break off from the opponents it can't outfight. It's a Wasp - small, hard to swat, and with a nasty sting in it's tail.
Iif you're something the size of a Zig, getting hit by just about anything attached to a modern fighteris going to be a fairly catastrophic event. Adding enough armour to tank a hit from 30mm shell means a bigger spacecraft, means more engines, and more fuel which means more armour in a vicious cycle. Eventually, you end up with something like this - 50 tons of battlesteel and lunar titanium that has a turning circle measured in AU, and a price that'd make a Scott think twice.
That's the tyranny of armour.
The Wasp's all about adding lightness and then simplifying. Because being lighter is a virtuous circle. It means we don't need a hydraulic system, and can use a lighter, less powerful engine that's more reliable. We can put more weaponry on it, or go further on less fuel. There's less to go wrong, less systems to be damaged. There's less to be fixed or maintained.
Survivability's about more than just taking a bullet and walking away. I think it's better not to be hit in the first place, which means being as hard to hit as possible.
---------
________________________________
--m(^0^)m-- Wot, no sig?
To: soc.military.starfighters
RE: The entrants are in. A few surprises, and surprise ommissions
---------
The 162's not a glass cannon, not by a longshot. A glass cannon relies on being powerful enough to kill the enemy, before its weakness is exposed. The 162 might not be able to take much in the way of damage, but it doesn't have to. It's got the energy advantage and the maneuverabiliy advantage, it's got control of the engagement, able to break off from the opponents it can't outfight. It's a Wasp - small, hard to swat, and with a nasty sting in it's tail.
Iif you're something the size of a Zig, getting hit by just about anything attached to a modern fighteris going to be a fairly catastrophic event. Adding enough armour to tank a hit from 30mm shell means a bigger spacecraft, means more engines, and more fuel which means more armour in a vicious cycle. Eventually, you end up with something like this - 50 tons of battlesteel and lunar titanium that has a turning circle measured in AU, and a price that'd make a Scott think twice.
That's the tyranny of armour.
The Wasp's all about adding lightness and then simplifying. Because being lighter is a virtuous circle. It means we don't need a hydraulic system, and can use a lighter, less powerful engine that's more reliable. We can put more weaponry on it, or go further on less fuel. There's less to go wrong, less systems to be damaged. There's less to be fixed or maintained.
Survivability's about more than just taking a bullet and walking away. I think it's better not to be hit in the first place, which means being as hard to hit as possible.
---------
________________________________
--m(^0^)m-- Wot, no sig?