Supercarrier help

[GoSlash27]

6 hours ago, tater said:

One, we have functional directed energy weapons. They can knock out missiles (I know people who work on them). By functional I mean they are mounted on aircraft, or built to shipboard weapon specs (size/mass wise). I used to see the airborne laser platform flying around all the time here (back when it was on a C-135 at the AF weapons lab here, not the 747 version).

 Functional <> practical. Current directed energy "weapons" are technology demonstrators, not practical weapon systems. We currently have actual weapons that can obliterate missiles with far more reliability and flexibility than directed energy, and they don't require insane mass and power generation to do it. Conversely, we have weapons that match today's directed energy tech's size and weight that can take out entire cities.
Perhaps it's the same in Jhorriga's fictional universe; you could build a simple laser with sufficient power to take out the target, but it's impractically large, unwieldy, and consumes too much power to be viable. They chose to go with a maguffin tech that delivers the same energy from a smaller, more flexible source that doesn't draw so much power... but transit time is greatly reduced.

6 hours ago, tater said:

Anyway, OP is postulating ships the size of BSG, or Star Wars type capital ships. To move at all, they require such vast amounts of power that the only current limitations of directed energy weapons are not an issue. If you are generating terawatts of power, the heavy lifting for laser weapons is already done

Perhaps not. Certainly not in his universe. Nobody's going to build a capital ship just to take out the occasional missile. A capital ship is going to have the capacity to take out other capital ships, and pretty much anything else that stands in their way.
 My maguffin 8 ball says that ships in his universe use a different propulsion system than fighters. Something with exceptionally high Isp, but low thrust. This allows them to travel for months or even years, but makes them bulky and ponderous, like WWII surface combatants. Tactical craft, OTOH, have a completely different propulsion system that allows for high acceleration and maneuverability and light weight... but limits their fuel supply to hours.
 And perhaps *all* of it relies on energy management, so while a capital ship could employ laser "pea shooters" with zero transit time and limited effectiveness, they simply wouldn't choose to go that way.

Best,
-Slashy
 

Edited January 22, 2018 by GoSlash27

[tater]

40 minutes ago, GoSlash27 said:

 Functional <> practical. Current directed energy "weapons" are technology demonstrators, not practical weapon systems. We currently have actual weapons that can obliterate missiles with far more reliability and flexibility than directed energy, and they don't require insane mass and power generation to do it. Conversely, we have weapons that match today's directed energy tech's size and weight that can take out entire cities.
Perhaps it's the same in Jhorriga's fictional universe; you could build a simple laser with sufficient power to take out the target, but it's impractically large, unwieldy, and consumes too much power to be viable. They chose to go with a maguffin tech that delivers the same energy from a smaller, more flexible source that doesn't draw so much power... but transit time is greatly reduced.

Functional in that they work.

Are you suggesting that they will continue to only be testbed level at a point in time when they otherwise have Battlestar Galactica, and space fighters zipping around? Really? The only limiting factor on directed energy weapons is power.

Deployed in 2014, the skipper of Ponce is authorized to use the weapon as an operational, defensive system. "In September 2014, the LaWS was declared an operational asset, so the ship commander has permission to use it for self-defense."

 

40 minutes ago, GoSlash27 said:

Perhaps not. Certainly not in his universe. Nobody's going to build a capital ship just to take out the occasional missile. A capital ship is going to have the capacity to take out other capital ships, and pretty much anything else that stands in their way.
 My maguffin 8 ball says that ships in his universe use a different propulsion system than fighters. Something with exceptionally high Isp, but low thrust. This allows them to travel for months or even years, but makes them bulky and ponderous, like WWII surface combatants. Tactical craft, OTOH, have a completely different propulsion system that allows for high acceleration and maneuverability and light weight... but limits their fuel supply to hours.
 And perhaps *all* of it relies on energy management, so while a capital ship could employ laser "pea shooters" with zero transit time and limited effectiveness, they simply wouldn't choose to go that way.

 

Like I said, i want to know the total dv of the fighters. Because they are then missiles.

[tater]

5 hours ago, GoSlash27 said:

Tater,

Well sure ya can. It's not so impossible for "anyone" to suspend their disbelief, just you. People have been making scientifically inaccurate sci-fi since the beginning. It doesn't get in the way of the story for most people.

 Besides, what's the deal with you trying to dissuade him from having space navies, fighters, etc if that's what he wants? It's his story. He could do "star galleons of the Sirius main" if he chooses.

Why not help him instead of dumping all over his vision?

Best,

-Slashy

 

I watch inaccurate SF all the time <cough> Star Wars </cough>. Most people seem to like SF with space battles. That's usually the part I like least, since they break so much. Combat occurring at ranges below what warships would have fought at many decades ago, for example. If the target is larger than a tiny speck in the distance it's already too close, they could just use naval artillery. It would look just like ww2, use a 5/38 DP AA gun, it would work just fine in space.

This question is posted in the science forum. If this was the Lounge, it gets more slack. HERE, I will at least demand that it is consistent. If you cam make fighters that go hundreds of km/s, then you cam make missiles that do the same. If a fighter can get within a few hundred meters of a target, and not get instantly picked off by CIWS (laser, or CPR gun like the ones already in use), then the missiles won't get hit, either, no need for fighters. If the guns can't hit the fighters, then they can't hit missiles. If you want missiles to not dominate, then the lasers (or whatever) need to be very effective (as they should be), so the missiles aren't way better than fighters, but then fighters get picked off easier than missile (bigger, and can evade less because of the squishy bit inside, plus harder to rotate (larger radius)).

It's hard to come up with something consistent that actually works.

I've been having this conversation, BTW, since the mid 1980s or so. The Traveller RPG had fighters (because Star Wars, lol), and is a total space opera, with a lot of physics broken. People were always trying to square them with the various combat systems in the game. Never worked for "fighter" sized craft. Larger craft---battleships minus the FTL drive---worked fine in this role. They'd be carried by an FTL framework, then the combat craft carry just systems to make them warships, not all the (huge in Traveller) jump drive and fuel. Little fighters never worked well, they were just annoying to large craft, and extremely dangerous (most get destroyed every time they are used). It's really hard to get past the problems.

I'm open to helping out, but I need to know all the parameters. Different drives? What's the mass cutoff for the smaller drive? Why put a person in there, except to make sure it misses when it shoot most of the time?

[ARS]

3 hours ago, tater said:

Little fighters never worked well, they were just annoying to large craft

On the other hand... A pair of proton torpedoes to thermal exhaust port...

Okay, first off, we know that sci-fi space opera ignores orbital mechanic, let's keep it that way in this discussion. The one that's more important here is what's the justification of several things we often see in the space opera setting?

Probably the only reason that fighters are present in most sci-fi space opera is because most large warship is equipped with energy shields. In almost every space opera scene or setting, the shield always shields against bullets, lasers, projectiles, missiles, etc. but almost never seen stopping fighters like an instant death radius. The justification here seems like this: The shield is an active protection radius that stops any projectiles detected around the ship moving at certain velocity/kinetic energy threshold. The fighter acts as a carrier for missiles or other weapons and the main purpose is to go 'under' the shield effective protection distance so the missiles can be launched to directly hit the target. On the other hand, a fighters is also handy for intercepting opposing fighters, protecting their parent ship from fighter strike. In addition, missiles can be jammed or fooled, but human pilot does not

If shields cannot stop fighters, why bother installing them? Well, first of all, this is a warship, full of high power weapons. Whenever they meet hostile warship, they'll fire this weapons against each other. A lot of scenes in sci-fi involves 'our shield cannot hold much longer!'. The justification here is that without a shield, a main gun of a warship is more than enough to wreck opposing warship (think about a duel between 2 cruise missile ships but without any anti missile defenses, where the one shoot first wins), their scene of shooting at each other with main gun is justified as an attempt to weaken opposing shield to the point of failure before they become totally exposed without means to stop any incoming ordnance (like the quote above). The fighter is also an attempt to weaken the enemy ship by bringing the weapons closer where it cannot be stopped with shield, or to defend parent craft from enemies fighter squadron

What about point defenses? Point defenses have a justification for having a purpose of intercepting missiles and fighters that passed the shield. However, projectile-based point defenses takes space for ammo storage, which at one point they'll run dry. While they may stop fighters and missiles, they usually unable to stop energy weapons, in addition, not every space on a warship is filled with point defenses, which creates several blind spots which the fighters can exploit (and protected by enemy fighters). Even if they are very effective at destroying incoming missiles, fighters might have their own shields (which is weaker, but sufficient to prevent them being one-shotted), in addition, their automatic defense targeting might be vulnerable to being jammed

In short, every stuff we see in sci-fi space opera is designed with justification, but also a necessary drawback to compensate. The only thing that I still cannot understand is distance and combat engagement range, since a tiny speck of warship in the distance in space means enemies are dangerously close, but I think the justification here is that it makes the story very boring when the ship is shooting at the target so far away that it feels it's shooting at nothing. Additionally, enemy ship might warp in close, or being closer means the enemy ship is less likely able to intercept and increasing weapon effectiveness

By the way, I'm willing to help out, but for every things put in space opera warfare, there must be a justification why it was needed, otherwise it looks plain silly, it's like you put a main gun of a battleship on a paper-armored submarine, expecting them to emerge next to an actual enemy battleship before exchanging fire when a torpedo can cripple battleship from safer position. I'm open for discussion about why things are needed in space opera and why it's justified

On the other hand, one of the longest combat engagement range in space opera that I ever seen is from Starship Troopers when the arachnid army launched an asteroid from their home planet into earth across AN ENTIRE GALAXY. Either the range is sufficiently realistic, excessively gigantic or hilariously LoLtastic

Edited January 22, 2018 by ARS

[DDE]

12 hours ago, tater said:

SW blasters look even slower than actual bullets, for example (dumb).

Particle beams-shmarticle beams.

10 hours ago, GoSlash27 said:

Well sure ya can. It's not so impossible for "anyone" to suspend their disbelief, just you. People have been making scientifically inaccurate sci-fi since the beginning. It doesn't get in the way of the story for most people.

Unfortunately, NOT doing soft sci-fi makes the audience shrink dramatically.

10 hours ago, GoSlash27 said:

He could do "star galleons of the Sirius main" if he chooses.

That would be an underused setting to space-ify.

Which makes it riskier than pure SW derivatives *cough* Wing Commander.

10 hours ago, GoSlash27 said:

Why not help him instead of dumping all over his vision?

Because... well, because it's not the right forum. It's evident that OP's jettisoning pure hard sci-fi constraints.

No other solid constraints are provided by @Jhorriga to work with.

Cue the thread degenerating into off-topic discussions.

5 hours ago, tater said:

Deployed in 2014, the skipper of Ponce is authorized to use the weapon as an operational, defensive system.

Against drones and light motorboats. While it's of comparable size to a Phalanx or RAM, which is antimissile-capable.

1 hour ago, ARS said:

By the way, I'm willing to help out, but for every things put in space opera warfare, there must be a justification why it was needed, otherwise it looks plain silly, it's like you put a main gun of a battleship on a paper-armored submarine, expecting them to emerge next to an actual enemy battleship before exchanging fire when a torpedo can cripple battleship from safer position. I'm open for discussion about why things are needed in space opera and why it's justified

Akhem...

1 hour ago, ARS said:

On the other hand, one of the longest combat engagement range in space opera that I ever seen is from Starship Troopers when the arachnid army launched an asteroid from their home planet into earth across AN ENTIRE GALAXY. Either the range is sufficiently realistic, excessively gigantic or hilariously LoLtastic

r/conspiracy wants a word with you.

[ARS]

5 minutes ago, DDE said:

Akhem...

Back then, post ww1, during and post ww2 there's no "common sense" when it comes to designing military hardware so any insane or impractical design can be excused since they make curved barrel rifles, flying tanks, rocket kamikaze fighter, land battleship, up to thinking sun powered killer satellite for experiments, curiosity or for the lolz

9 minutes ago, DDE said:

conspiracy wants a word with you.

Is there a much longer range? I'm curious

[DDE]

43 minutes ago, ARS said:

Is there a much longer range? I'm curious

Oh, you would like to know more!?

It's a Federation false flag attack on their own people to justify a permanent offensive war.

 

[ARS]

50 minutes ago, DDE said:

It's a Federation false flag attack on their own people to justify a permanent offensive war.

It was a lieeeee!!!!?????

The truth... My life has ruined forever....

[GoSlash27]

7 hours ago, tater said:

Like I said, i want to know the total dv of the fighters. Because they are then missiles.

tater,
 Fighters have been used as missiles since back in WWII, perhaps earlier. See the V-1, Kamikaze attacks, etc.

One thing I think we can all safely agree on: @Jhorriga, you should probably request to have this thread moved to the Lounge.

Best,
-Slashy

[DDE]

22 minutes ago, GoSlash27 said:

tater,
 Fighters have been used as missiles since back in WWII, perhaps earlier. See the V-1, Kamikaze attacks, etc.

One thing I think we can all safely agree on: @Jhorriga, you should probably request to have this thread moved to the Lounge.

Best,
-Slashy

Actually, this thread has been infested by hard sci-fiers beyond recovery.

 

[KSK]

20 hours ago, Jhorriga said:

Magical space drive, they do have.

Battleships would move slower because it seems more fitting. (Keep in mind not everything in this universe is based off scientific fact. chunks of it are just there because it seems cooler or it would allow more action.)

Artificial gravity generators are present within most ships, but seatbelts are still used on shuttles and fast moving craft like fighters.

In that case, I'm wondering if shields might be your friend. Have some kind of field that causes 'Casimir drag' (don't bother explaining this in any detail) as a side effect of its defensive capability, i.e. it makes space behave like a viscous fluid. So big, shield equipped ships move slowly.

Or, think outside the box a little. It's not so much that your capital ships can't move quickly it's that operational constraints limit what they can do in practice. For example, what if your 'shields' were batteries of wormhole projectors? Open a wormhole near any incoming ordnance (whether than be photons, plasma or kinetic) and it gets teleported to the other side of the ship.

Operational constraints:

1. The power required to open a wormhole depends on the cube of the wormhole throat diameter. Teleporting laser beams and smaller projectiles is fine, teleporting larger munitions or enemy ships is a lot harder or outright impossible. Plus total available power is finite, so, for example, you can have one big wormhole capable of teleporting any amount of incoming fire from one direction, at the expense of leaving your flanks unshielded.

2. The projectors have a finite range.

Result. Capital ships will tend to stay at fairly long range to avoid, for example, having an open wormhole appear in the middle of the CIC at short notice. The problem is, at that sort of range, it's relatively easy to fight an opposing capital ship to a stalemate, both ships being basically immune to incoming fire. You get around that by using support ships to flank the enemy capital ships and hit their unshielded sections. The problem with *that* is, that the capital ship manoeuvrability becomes extremely limited due to possible friendly fire incidents. You really don't want to have the enemy's main wormhole projectors moving around too much and accidentally teleporting quantities of munitions into your own support ships, or deliberately skewering your own ships.

Hence capital ships become essentially fixed assets, tying up the enemy's main assets and relying on smaller ships to actually carry the fight to that enemy.

If you want to take this a step further, you could throw in a third constraint. Have the wormhole projectors rely on a targeting field for maximum effectiveness. Now for reasons unexplained, one of the side effects of that field is to increase the quantum tunnelling range of anything passing through it. This is uncomfortable but not immediately fatal for living brains  but does a number on any sort of integrated circuits.

Result: This provides another incentive for capital ships to stay at range and also makes drones, advanced missiles or other autonomous weapon platforms rather impractical. So - living pilots it is, flying electronically crude ships and hoping to whatever deity they believe in that they're not going to get a faceful of friendly fire teleporting in on top of them. Hence you get a trade-off between using precise battle formations (to minimise that friendly fire risk) vs the predictability (and thus vulnerability) of those formations.

Lots of interesting story telling possibilities there as well. Perhaps that targeting field *will* scramble pilots brains after too many sorties. This might kill the pilots outright, give them unpredictable quirks, or just drive them mad. Perhaps, in the never ending quest for faster and more agile support ships, pilots have been reduced to a brains-in-a-jar, that are just plugged into their fighters. What sort of soldiers would volunteer for that? Logistically, and psychologically, how does your military deal with the care and feeding of a brain-in-a-jar?

TL:DR - McGuffin levels of technology are fine but give them consequences, give them weaknesses and let them shape the available military tactics in-universe. 

Edited January 22, 2018 by KSK

[DDE]

2 minutes ago, KSK said:

Have some kind of field that causes 'Casimir drag' (don't bother explaining this in any detail) as a side effect of its defensive capability, i.e. it makes space behave like a viscous fluid.

Off-hand note: in EVE Online, the "WD40 space" is justified by warp core-induced drag.

Why it still affects non-warp-capable drones is left unexplained.

[tater]

Shields are often used, yet somehow the fighters must carry weapons that can hurt the large ships, or they have no raison d'être. So you have shields that stand away from a ship somehow, then fighters can get under the shields? Then why do missiles shot from far away explode on the shields? If a fighter gets through, a missile gets through. A meta missile could break apart into many smaller ones. If they have power levels that pretty much require antimatter as a power source, then they don't need nukes, they have anti-matter, and missiles can be tiny and very powerful.

I actually have less problem with a setting of star galleons sailing the ether than most space fighter universes, lol.

[DDE]

28 minutes ago, tater said:

Then why do missiles shot from far away explode on the shields? If a fighter gets through, a missile gets through.

And you still have the issue of high-velocity ramming. For someone even barely technically literate, the boundary between (unmanned) fighters and missiles is not immediately apparent.

That's how we got loitering munitions.

[ARS]

One of the sci-fi lore that I've seen is like this:

"The shield system works by using a powerful force field projector to stop incoming projectiles. When the system detect an incoming object passing it's velocity threshold, the system project a force field on the projectile's path to deflect it. This drains a portion of system's power capacitor, which will be recharged shortly by the internal reactor unless another hit drains the capacitor further. A depleted capacitor will be unable to provide a shield protection. Unfortunately, the shield has no effect on fighters since they are moving slower than missiles or projectiles, and their interception has been handled by the point defense systems, which shoots any ordnance passing beyond the shield's minimum force field projection distance."

Yes, the point of the fighter is to carry a missile through the shield. It's like a Trojan horse. Fighters are piloted since drones are prone to being hacked, jammed or fooled

[GoSlash27]

On 1/22/2018 at 8:16 AM, tater said:

Shields are often used, yet somehow the fighters must carry weapons that can hurt the large ships, or they have no raison d'être.

I agree. I've never been a fan of the concept of fighters being able to sneak through shields. I consider "shields" in soft sci- fi to be nothing more than temporary armor.
 

 The reason to use fighters is the same as it was in WWII; they can carry a weapon capable of crippling a capital ship or destroying an escort, can overwhelm the defenses when they attack in numbers with good coordination, and is much safer than having your capital ships and escorts slugging it out like dreadnoughts at Jutland.

Best,
-Slashy

Edited January 29, 2018 by GoSlash27

[Cassel]

15 minutes ago, GoSlash27 said:

I agree. I've never been a fan of the concept of fighters being able to sneak through shields. I consider "shields" in soft sci- fi to be nothing more than temporary armor.
 

 The reason to use fighters is the same as it was in WWII; they can carry a weapon capable of crippling a capital ship or destroying an escort, can overwhelm the defenses when they attack in numbers with good coordination, and is much safer than having your capital ships and escorts slug it out like ships o' the line at Jutland.

Best,
-Slashy

In WWII planes were able to carry bombs and torpedos, there was no rockets. Right now rockets can replace plane armed with bombs ;-)
Automated laser/railgun turrets  can replace planes with defensive capabilities (antiair weapons).

Check how current wars are going, Ukraine or Syria, planes are useful vs enemy with outdated weapons. Ground units with AA weapons can destroy everything they detect  and it is in their range.

[Terwin]

Never forget the cost.

Unless you are in a post-scarcity universe, the total value and upkeep of your military has a limit, and you will almost never be able to have as much as you want of the latest and greatest toys.

Larger systems have larger costs, and a fighter that can be used for 100 missions, is much cheaper than 100 missiles of equivalent function.

Perhaps fighter drives are very very expensive and that is why you do not put them on missiles: you would go broke in short order

Also, just because you have a very large energy budget, does not mean you want to squander it, effective lasers may be very power-hungry compared to other systems, especially if you use some sort of low-energy gravity drive on your capitol ships.  

Long range lasers require huge mirrors that are easy to target, otherwise they are too diffuse to be useful by the time they get to the target.(and any damage/smudging to the mirror means your next laser-blast will destroy the weapon, not the target)

Lasers probably also require a great deal of cooling which is much harder in space than it is in an atmosphere.

[GoSlash27]

18 minutes ago, Cassel said:

In WWII planes were able to carry bombs and torpedos, there was no rockets.

Oh, no... There were rockets and they were used to devastating effect. A flight of F4U Corsairs could unload a barrage of "Holy Moses" rockets that was as powerful as the broadside from a cruiser.

Spoiler

 

 

 I'd think that rockets in this universe would make a useful analogue to torpedoes or bombs.

Best,
-Slashy
 

 

16 minutes ago, Terwin said:

Lasers probably also require a great deal of cooling which is much harder in space than it is in an atmosphere.

Agreed, and that's probably a big part of the fictional limitations; everything that requires energy also requires heat dissipation.

Best,
-Slashy

Edited January 22, 2018 by GoSlash27

[DDE]

36 minutes ago, ARS said:

"The shield system works by using a powerful force field projector to stop incoming projectiles. When the system detect an incoming object passing it's velocity threshold, the system project a force field on the projectile's path to deflect it. This drains a portion of system's power capacitor, which will be recharged shortly by the internal reactor unless another hit drains the capacitor further. A depleted capacitor will be unable to provide a shield protection. Unfortunately, the shield has no effect on fighters since they are moving slower than missiles or projectiles, and their interception has been handled by the point defense systems, which shoots any ordnance passing beyond the shield's minimum force field projection distance."

Am I Commander Shepard and is this my favourite franchise on the Internet?

15 minutes ago, Cassel said:

In WWII planes were able to carry bombs and torpedos, there was no rockets. Right now rockets can replace plane armed with bombs ;-)
Automated laser/railgun turrets  can replace planes with defensive capabilities (antiair weapons).

Check how current wars are going, Ukraine or Syria, planes are useful vs enemy with outdated weapons. Ground units with AA weapons can destroy everything they detect  and it is in their range.

Standoff weapons and stealth; mostly the former, since the latter is actually shockingly easy to counter. If your enemy has a 400 km AA umbrella, use an air-launched cruise missile with a range of 450 km; for much of organic troops AA, unpowered guided bombs have enough of a "basket" at high altitudes to drop them from beyond weapons range. Then you have SEAD missions that eliminate or suppress the enemy AA itself before you send in the "bomb trucks".

[ARS]

12 minutes ago, GoSlash27 said:

I'd think that rockets in this universe would make a useful analogue to torpedoes or bombs.

Agreed, with the lack of space dedicated for guidance systems, it can pack much more explosive warhead. Fired straight like unguided rockets, it behaves just like dumb bombs, torpedoes or rockets in WW2 (as a bonus point, it's easier to build straightforward unguided rockets than guided missiles)

[GoSlash27]

9 minutes ago, ARS said:

Agreed, with the lack of space dedicated for guidance systems, it can pack much more explosive warhead. Fired straight like unguided rockets, it behaves just like dumb bombs, torpedoes or rockets in WW2 (as a bonus point, it's easier to build straightforward unguided rockets than guided missiles)

Or even pure bombs could model bombs. Nothing but a big ol' iron case filled with semtex and a proximity fuse. The fighter releases it while on an intercept course with the target, and it simply keeps its vector until impact (or miss). The closer the fighter gets before release, the more likelihood of an impact, but also the likelihood of the fighter being destroyed by defensive fire.

Best,
-Slashy

[DDE]

16 minutes ago, ARS said:

Agreed, with the lack of space dedicated for guidance systems, it can pack much more explosive warhead. Fired straight like unguided rockets, it behaves just like dumb bombs, torpedoes or rockets in WW2 (as a bonus point, it's easier to build straightforward unguided rockets than guided missiles)

2 minutes ago, GoSlash27 said:

Or even pure bombs could model bombs. Nothing but a big ol' iron case filled with semtex and a proximity fuse. The fighter releases it while on an intercept course with the target, and it simply keeps its vector until impact (or miss). The closer the fighter gets before release, the more likelihood of an impact, but also the likelihood of the fighter being destroyed by defensive fire.

Best,
-Slashy

Known in hard sci-fi circles as "lancers". Because they joust with bombs.

VERY similar to dive bombers of yesteryear, actually.

Otherwise known as freakin' Nazguls.

https://youtu.be/2VygxHAeKpE?t=8

[tater]

People have value, presumably, as well. In SF universes with fighters, pilots tend to be fairly elite, yet they are put in a situation where anyone paying attention to realism at all, or simply paying attention to consistency, must conclude they are all going to die pretty much every time they face combat.

If large ships are survivable at all, then they are going to be superior to fighters. In these ww2-like settings, the fighters have to be capable of taking out the big craft, but only occasionally, else the carriers all get killed. It's a tough balance to get correct. In ww2, the survival of the carriers was often the result of not being spotted. That is not a thing in space. All the cards are on the table. If you can kill the enemy capital ships with fighters, they can kill yours, and we're not any better off outcome wise than a Jutland-like slug fest between the big ships.

Fighters that can possibly damage large ships immediately make us ask the question, "Why pilots?" Because pilots are cool, obviously, but to be consistent, you need to make a rationale why computers in the SF universe are in fact worse than what we have now. There is simply no reason for a pilot, and in fact a drone, or autonomous weapon would always win in SW-like dogfights (they could pull more gs, even with gravitational dampers that such SF always has, it must have some limit, and the computer piloted vehicle has no limitations).

What I need is a fleshed out statement of how the combat works in a universe. Then I will pick it apart. I can't help create one where it WILL work, because I don't think that fighters are even remotely plausible, and I can't imagine any alternate reality where they are, frankly.

[ARS]

Telling story about the life of fighter drones is less appealing for audience than telling an elite pilot's combat record. Also, drones does not have decision making capabilities like humans do. Drones can also get jammed, fooled or hacked (if drones have a potential to kill carriers, and suddenly your drones are hacked to be hostile towards you, you are screwed). And as mentioned by @Terwin, space warfare is not cheap (mostly). A fighter that have a service life of 100 battles is much more economical than buying 100 missiles. Pilots can gain experience to fight and adapt to different combat situations better, but drones does not.

About the computer in space, there's a bit of truth in real life, computers used in space is indeed worse than we have on earth. Many space probes, especially for exploration past Jupiter even has a transmission data rate of one bit per second (not byte, it's bit). When NASA is asked why they didn't use more powerful or better computer, they simply said that: "Back then during the early space age, we're evaluating several computers that'll be used for unmanned mission into another planet. Several of the candidates are amongst the best, fastest and most sophisticated computers ever designed during that era. But we choose the slowest and simplest one. Why? Faster and more powerful computer has higher clock speed as well as more power hungry, this creates an issue in power management and heat dissipation since unlike on earth, heat dissipation is a far more serious problem in space. Also, more complex system is more vulnerable to failure than simple system, and in space, there's no way we can repair them like here on earth, so we choose the simplest system that worked for space probes simply because, what they lack in performance and quality, they compensate it with durability and reliability"