Quoted:
The statement that the top speed of the T-65 is 110 mglt (sublight) is patently ridiculous. The top speed of any vessel in sublight is just short of light speed,
if it has enough fuel to get to that speed. Space is a zero friction environment (notwithstanding flying through the dust clouds that were once planets,
destroyed by Death Stars) so you can get to any speed you want, subject to your fuel reserve limitations.
Every..and I mean EVERY...sci-fi space show or movie also commits the unpardonable sin of having engines lit all the time while in cruise. Bullshit. You cruise
with engines OFF. Engines are only on for acceleration, deceleration, or course adjustments. You won't slow down when you shut down the engines.
Also, nearly every space program or movie has applied aerodynamic handling principles to space battles. Only Space: Above and Beyond even came CLOSE to
getting that right, with fighter maneuvering sequences based on zero gravity, zero atmosphere ballistics rather than aerodynamic principles.
You do NOT bank to turn in space. You orient for Gs to be exerted in the axis you want them to be, but you don't bank turns!
The optimal fighter design for space is a sphere, as compact as possible, with huge attitude jets at all axes. Minimal surface area for a given volume, smallest
possible target. No need to compromise the design for non-existent aerodymamic functionality.
Since BSG is SLIGHTLY more realistic than Star Wars, from a physics perspective, I'd bet on the Viper. There is no cinematic evidence that a T-65 is even in the same
league as the Mark II in terms of maneuvering performance. In eyeball range, I'd bet on the Viper.
CJ
QFT,
A "starfighter" would probably look something like a "brilliant pebble" or the EKV's (Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle) of the later anti-ballistic missile intercept work that's being done now.
A powerful sensor telescope since things in space don't conveniently just loop around in tight quarters that are easily filmable in a 16:9 aspect ratio for the movies. (Even WWI/WWII areal combat airplanes are most often tiny and far away, space just adds several orders of magnitude.) Patches of phased-array radar will probably also be covering the surface. "Stealth" in space will probably not be possible, so you might as well run your search radar 24/7, as will your enemy. The thermodynamics of trying to "hide" yourself in space work at visible and radar frequencies, but in IR it's pretty much
impossible. And any schemes to hide behind an "umbrella" or use a heat pump to make your ship "cold" (and fire away the heat energy as a laser in a non-threatening direction) don't work out either.
And add to that, here and now 20th/early 21st century technology has IR cameras/sensors that can view fractional differences in heat of galaxies and stellar objects hundreds, millions, and billions of light years away. So someone who is in the same solar system as you is going to "hide" or gain the element of "surprise" how exactly?
The fighters are far apart, and moving fast. Closing speeds are
enormous. And will have engine nozzles pointed in four or more orthogonal directions for rapid maneuvering. Energy weapons look like small telescope domes that rotate 360 degrees. Railguns/coilguns for KW might have "barrels" that the ship needs to orient to aim them. You can't hide, and the strategy is alarmingly simple, you're either out of range to fight, or it's on... So you go in hot weapons blazing.
And since your life-expectancy is measured in minutes, with engagements winding up with both fighters "dead" being common, there's no pilot. It's either remote controlled or run by AI. In essence, the fighter is more akin to the current crop of UCAV's that are coming up now. A missile that fires off more missiles.
A "starfighter" will look something like this.