Surrounding a warhead in armor will dampen the explosion. A warhead will only burn through so much armor surrounding it in some will hurt it. Also yes lets just use a kinetic warhead...know what thats called? A bullet. It'd just be a bullet with an engine, great for busting through earthwork and getting into a bunker but then you still need an explosion to destroy said bunker. Look at a bunkerbuster bomb, its got a lot of armor on its front cause it has to dig deep but it still has explosives that go out and up because its supposed to get inside the bunker. This works because its going against earthworks and cement with some steel reinforcements but the steels not that thick. These are spaceships that have armor that can withstand the heat from the sun.
Assuming that what you're saying is true, and I'm not saying it is, why couldn't the missile just purge its armor before it hit? That's basically what a fighter does when it launches its missile.
How do you get something that weighs only 1kg with any ability to maneuver? Remember it takes more energy to go faster the faster you are going. Also remember the faster you are going the harder it is to maneuver. Take into account the fact that your target is able to go just as fast if not faster. my tempest can outrun missiles for example. Remember that if you're going that fast and you hit something in space that's also 1 kg there goes your weapon its going to break apart. because bullets tend to shatter when they hit something. Now i only have dealt with terrestrial objects in my life but i can tell you that missiles have their use and fighters have their use. I really wish you'd just argue for drones cause that'd make more sense.
I'm not talking about starfarer when I talk about space fighters not making sense, so I'm not sure how your tempest has anything to do with real life.
Except the combat doesn't take place at far range, there are fighters swarming all over an onslaught at a range where you midaswell just shoot them with your massive guns that can also accelerate something to a fraction of light speed because they're close enough you need not even aim all that much. Missiles cost a lot of money, bullets are cheap.
That's another assumption. You're very good at making assumptions. If you could strike from very far ranges, why wouldn't you? I certainly wouldn't want to get close if I were fighting in space, given the lack of cover of any kind.
u are still making asumptions that fighters are using conventional fuel burning rocket engines for thrust...
and that there wont be nifty device to counter all those g:s
when technology is advanced enough it will seem like magick so i will still say my fighters>ur missiles because of magick ;3
You're absolutely, right, that's magic. Reactionless drives are magic, they violate basic laws of physics that have been tried and tested and form the bedrock of our understanding of the world. And they'll never happen. It's fine if you want fighters in your story because you don't care about science (makes me wonder why you care about sci fi) but don't try to claim that it's plausible.
'In the future we'll have technology that will allow me to keep my lazy sci fi tropes' is not an argument. I don't have to make assumptions about future technology to make my case-- you do.
That's no longer a missile but a drone. Drones i got no problem with make more sense than people pilots no life is at stake but the targets.
No, it's not a drone. It's an intelligent missile. Fighters come back, missiles do not. Anything that doesn't have to come back but is a guided projectile is a missile. Anything that is a guided projectile and has to come back is a fighter. Manned or unmanned, they're terrible weapons.
