Interceptors in Outsider

[avatar576]

I am wondering what benefit there is to having manned interceptors in the Outsider-verse. I'm not questioning their role as mobile point-defense platforms. These should be quite useful against the Umiak tactics of using missile swarms to occupy Loroi defenses until they can get within beam-weapon range. But surely the technology exists that these could be autonomous drones or remotely piloted from the mother ship.

There would be many advantages.
With no need for life support systems, they could be built smaller (meaning warships could carry more of them), even more agile, and/or pack more weaponry on board. That simplifies the manufacture and maintenance as well.

The Loroi are currently experiencing terrible losses of Tenoin pilots deployed to strike groups. Entire squadrons get decimated on their first deployments, as in the case of Talon and Spiral, the last two surviving members of their original unit. I have to imagine other groups experience similar loss rates. With unmanned interceptors, you cut these losses considerably. That has to mean a big morale bonus, which the Loroi could certainly use right about now.

You could probably have a single "pilot" controlling an entire flight of unmanned drones from a control room as opposed to needing one pilot per manned interceptor. That helps to make your shipboard resources go just a little bit further. The remaining pilots can be reassigned elsewhere as needed, helping to ease manpower shortages.

You'd still need to train pilots to be remote controllers, but this would have to be considerably easier than training them to fly the actual aircraft, and as before, you wouldn't need as many of them, so Tenoin training overall would be easier and cheaper.

I'm hard pressed to think of any major disadvantages to unmanned interceptors. Except perhaps that they might be susceptible to hacking by the enemy and turned against you. But I think it would be a simple matter of programming them to shut down and reboot, or self-destruct if subverted.
What are your thoughts?

[Arioch]

A space opera setting without fighter pilots would be no fun, as would be unmanned starships. With that in mind, here are some thoughts.

First, there is a limit to which the Loroi are willing to place non-expendable weapons platforms entirely under the control of autonomous AI. They haven't exactly had a Butlerian Jihad, but in an interstellar community as large and as old as that in the Local Bubble, there will be cautionary tales of the kind Elon Musk tells, of those who depended too much on AI and paid the price for it. They are also fighting in a battlespace in which things like Pocket Historians exist. Loroi (and most of the combatants) make heavy use of computer and software aids in terms of navigation, targeting, etc., but they are almost always used as tools by a living operator, and one of the most fundamental features of all such systems is a manual override.

Remote control will be in wide use, but there are limitations on range according to lightspeed lag and line of sight, and the potential for jamming. I recently read the US Air Force's specifications for what they wanted in a sixth-generation fighter, and one was the capability to fly either manned or unmanned. So one or more manned aircraft could lead a networked flight of identical but unmanned aircraft, which would function primarily as missiles buses. I expect that Loroi interceptors can fly manned or unmanned, with remote control used only at relatively close ranges. While I expect that computer expert systems will outperform "humans" in many regards, I am of the opinion that those same systems under a human operator's control will work even better, most particularly in unexpected situations. So it is my supposition that a manned fighter will usually outperform an unmanned one. (Acceleration limits don't apply here, as the liquid-breathing Tenoin pilots can take more g-stress than their machines are capable of dishing out.) So I think that the Loroi will send out their interceptors with pilots if they're available, and without them if they aren't. It's reasonable to suppose that not all of the interceptors deployed by SG-51 at Naam were manned.

The last point is the tradition of what the Loroi use fighters for. In past conflicts, the state of technological balance was such that fighters were effective offensive as well as defensive platforms. With faster capital ships and longer beam ranges, this offensive capability has diminished, but the Loroi are reluctant to let go of this capability. For shipboard point defense platforms, smaller unmanned drones would probably be more cost-effective, but the Loroi already have light interceptors that do the job adequately without being limited to pure defense.

[Tamri]

I was trying to model the concept of a viable fighter in space. It turned out something like a decentralized swarm of drones. One flight coordinator with a live person on board (or several, depending on what level your AIs are and how much you are willing to delegate to them) for a dozen or one and a half drones. Since the basis of dominance in the air and space is, first of all, the overwhelming numerical advantage of small aircraft, such a solution will make it possible to strike a balance between efficiency and pilot losses. Drones can be specialized, I conditionally divided them into Interceptors (light weapons to gain dominance in space and protect comrades), Skirmishers (heavy weapons to destroy/damage targets of heavy classes) and Support (carry missiles or EW-AEW&C equipment). Formations can be reinforced with fast corvettes or light destroyers, which can keep pace with fighters and are needed to increase the combat stability of the group.

But for any noticeable effectiveness, you really need a lot of machines - hundreds or even thousands at a time, if you intend to attack a powerful enemy grouping. Aviation as it is used by loroi is practically useless, and I see no particular reason for its existence other than tradition.

[Keklas Rekobah]

In the real world, I can easily imagine a C-130 AWACS platform with perhaps a dozen onboard stations dedicated to remote control of fighter drones.  The C-130 would stand off about 20 miles from the battle arena, and the drones would zoom in above mach speed to engage the enemy.  Pulling 6 gees or more would be no problem, and a last-ditch kamikaze assault would not be unheard of.

This concept might be transferable to space combat, but time lag might limit the drones to close picket duty.

[Tamri]

20 miles in modern dogfighting is just seeds. Especially for such a fat duck as AC130. It is contraindicated for AWACS aircraft to approach closer than 80 km to the battlefield, because nothing will miss them, neither ground nor airbased air defense.

That's why I "lowered" the coordinator to, roughly speaking, the squadron commander. Now the UAV control complex occupies a truck, or even a trailer. I foresee that the development of both drones and control equipment will allow it to fit on a platform, the characteristics of which will allow it to go in line with combat vehicles, and control them, either in battlefield or nearby. And reducing the number of vehicles controlled by the coordinator with debugging the process of transferring channels from destroyed-damaged coordinators to intact ones will increase the flexibility and combat stability of such units, allowing them to act like ordinary air groups, but having orders of magnitude fewer living pilots and having a much lower cost .

I am not sure that the tactics of war with swarms of drones, which are now being born, will be portable to space. After all, it is based on the fact that drones are much cheaper than countermeasures, extremely inconspicuous and hard to destroy ... All that, for obvious reasons, is hardly feasible in a space battle.

[Keklas Rekobah]

Okay, so 100 km then.

[G. Janssen]

Here's my cynical contribution. Don't take it too serious in relation to this thread, though it is true.

Even during most of the nineteenth century, Western armies mostly consisted of convicts, unemployed and paupers. One of the goals of any war in those days was population control. To get rid of the undesirables.

Why else would officers let their regiments in brightly colored uniforms march towards one another until they were 50 paces apart, line them up in hard to miss shoulder to shoulder formations and then order them to fire into the opposing wall of meat until one regiment had no surviving soldiers left? And why else would the usually surviving officer (shooting officers was considered uncivil) salute the victor, walk away and be given command of another regiment? Superior tactics? Inaccurate firearms?

No.

And we know that Loroi can breed like rabbits...

[dragoongfa]

Here's my cynical contribution. Don't take it too serious in relation to this thread, though it is true.

Even during most of the nineteenth century, Western armies mostly consisted of convicts, unemployed and paupers. One of the goals of any war in those days was population control. To get rid of the undesirables.

Why else would officers let their regiments in brightly colored uniforms march towards one another until they were 50 paces apart, line them up in hard to miss shoulder to shoulder formations and then order them to fire into the opposing wall of meat until one regiment had no surviving soldiers left? And why else would the usually surviving officer (shooting officers was considered uncivil) salute the victor, walk away and be given command of another regiment? Superior tactics? Inaccurate firearms?

No.

And we know that Loroi can breed like rabbits...

That's both completely wrong and off-topic.

The core of all capable western armies of the age was always professional, especially of the British armies. In times of war the armies were always bolstered by conscripted levies. The various undesirable elements were usually press ganged to become ship crews, the armies were either professionals or conscripts. As for the tactics, those were there because of the limitations of technology of the time. The Uniforms were brightly lit and easy to differentiate between one an other because of the need to identify friend from foe for artillery fire which was the primary killer of the age. The troops were tightly pressed onto each other in order to both project the greatest amoung of firepower and be able to defend against cavalry charges. It can be argued that 'things' could be done better but the limitations of the time demanded that armies make do with what was 'good enough' for every battle.

As for the topic at hand:

I am of the opinion that starfighters as they are depicted in most sci-fi settings are flawed and completely unrealistic. Maneuvering in space is all down to mass to thrust ratios, as long as you have a high enough mass to thrust ratio you can make a ship of any size dance around like a starfighter, as thus a screen of light escorts would both be just as maneuverable as fighters while boasting far greater firepower and staying power. In a realistic setting starfighters would be swept aside effortlessly by a combination of light escorts and point defense missile systems.

[Keklas Rekobah]

. . . I am of the opinion that starfighters as they are depicted in most sci-fi settings are flawed and completely unrealistic. Maneuvering in space is all down to mass to thrust ratios, as long as you have a high enough mass to thrust ratio you can make a ship of any size dance around like a starfighter, as thus a screen of light escorts would both be just as maneuverable as fighters while boasting far greater firepower and staying power. In a realistic setting starfighters would be swept aside effortlessly by a combination of light escorts and point defense missile systems.

A picket “swarm” of moving point-defense weapons platforms with synchronized sensors might be more effective than the cinematic “dogfights” of B5 and BSG. The planetary attack of Ender’s Game illustrates what I mean — a quickly-adaptable shield or screen of “fighters” around a capital ship would augment the ship’s own point-defense systems.

I hear they could also be handy for rescuing the occasional survivor of a destroyed vessel . . .

[Demarquis]

Realistically, the concept of manned fighters makes absolutely no sense in space (depending upon exactly how you define "fighter"). If a fighter is a small, manned combat craft that relies primarily on speed and maneuverability for offense and defense, then the fighter concept in space is right out. With even near future human tech, combat will take place at such ranges that "maneuvering" consists of a blip moving slowly across a screen, and "speed" per se doesn't apply at all (the reason fighters have an advantage over battleships is because ships move through water, which is slow, while fighters move through air, which is fast. This doesn't apply in space). Small vessels should have no particular advantage in acceleration, which is a function of thrust to mass. If everyone is using more or less the same drive design, then fighters are just small spaceships, while battle cruisers are just very large fighters. Since each will have engines that are proportional to their size, they should accelerate at more or less the same rate. Of course, aerial style maneuvers in space a la "Star Wars" are just space fantasy. Finally, ask yourself what weapons fighters are supposed to deploy, and why you wouldn't just mount them on the battleships? A fighter carrying a missile is just a two-stage rocket, so why not just mount another stage on the missile and fire it from the battleship?

There is some sense in mounting lasers or a coil guns on a small, mobile platforms, which could then be networked together to coordinate fire. But this reduces "fighters" to remote gun turrets, which is not exactly what people envision when they think of this concept. Or, if you want them to operate independently of the mother ship, then they become a drone swarm.

It comes down to the cost/benefit of including humans. The advantage is having a human make firing decisions that might depend on subjective judgement (you don't want your AI taking out the wrong ships). The disadvantages are numerous. Humans have reduced reaction time relative to even modern day expert systems, let alone in the future. They are more easily distracted or confused. The life support equipment costs a considerable amount of mass and money, which detracts from performance and cost-efficiency. And of course, human lives are more valuable than machines. So the question becomes what advantage does one manned "fighter" provide that X number of more drones wouldn't?

It seems to me that in the future space navies will have very strong incentives to minimize the human presence in the combat zone. If some minimum number of command personnel are considered essential due to lag times and subjective judgement, then the "one command module providing oversight to a swarm of unmanned drones" is the most likely outcome. But I think advances in AI will allow the human presence to be eliminated altogether. There are already programs in development that can outfight experienced fighter pilots in simulations. How much longer before this translates into the real world?

Of course, none of this is meant as a criticism of "Outsider." As Arioch already mentioned, unmanned spacecraft are boring (unless they are self-aware, a la "The Culture" series), and the imperatives of narrative tension demand a human protagonist.

[avatar576]

I had envisioned the drone concept as a relatively close swarm around the mother ship (to reduce comm lag) which would act as a CIWS for incoming projectiles. Anything that got past the mother ship's PD weapons would get shredded by the drone swarm (edit: as basically described just above)

You can triangulate the bogey's position and speed by letting the drones "talk" to each other and report relative position and speed. You'd get pinpoint accuracy.

I don't know much about how targeting computers would work in this setting, but I also had the thought that if the drones are "bright" enough, then they could pull double-duty as "chaff," confusing the enemy's targeting systems. I figure a solitary ship is a relatively easy target to hit, but when there are a hundred or a thousand brightly-lit gnats buzzing around it, then targeting system may be more likely to try and swat at the gnats rather than the mother ship.

But the Loroi being unwilling to give up control to AI because of Pocket Hackers Historians certainly makes sense. And I can also see Tenoin pilots being the cocky, Top Gun, Maverick/Goose-types unwilling to give up that kind of status.

[Demarquis]

I had envisioned the drone concept as a relatively close swarm around the mother ship (to reduce comm lag) which would act as a CIWS for incoming projectiles. Anything that got past the mother ship's PD weapons would get shredded by the drone swarm (edit: as basically described just above)

I get what you are saying, but that isn't how drone swarms work--in fact that defeats the entire purpose of a swarm intelligence.

"Swarm" in this context refers to a type of AI--one in which is decentralized and distributed across each member of the swarm. The computational capacity of an individual member is rather small, and each one is merely following a relatively short list of "If-Then" commands. But at the same time, they are keeping track of the behaviors of the other members of the swarm, and part of their programming includes responses to actions of the rest of the swarm. This gives the swarm as a whole non-linear properties--they act exactly like a swarm of birds or insects, except oriented toward destroying a target. They can learn, and upload the results of their learning to a main server, which then updates all other swarms in the same military. It doesn't take long for the swarms to begin behaving in extremely complex ways.

Tying them down to a central coordinating AI robs them of their principle advantage.

I don't know much about how targeting computers would work in this setting, but I also had the thought that if the drones are "bright" enough, then they could pull double-duty as "chaff," confusing the enemy's targeting systems. I figure a solitary ship is a relatively easy target to hit, but when there are a hundred or a thousand brightly-lit gnats buzzing around it, then targeting system may be more likely to try and swat at the gnats rather than the mother ship.

Combine this with the reality that this "chaff" is the most dangerous opponent out there, there is no mother ship, and that swatting some of them will make no discernible difference to their overall performance, and yeah, that could easily overwhelm a single ship's PD system.

But the Loroi being unwilling to give up control to AI because of Pocket Hackers Historians certainly makes sense. And I can also see Tenoin pilots being the cocky, Top Gun, Maverick/Goose-types unwilling to give up that kind of status.

That's a game changer, I admit. But it's almost impossible to "hack" a swarm, because their programming is so simple that it can be hardwired into them.

[Tamri]

In fact, all these arguments rest on several points.

"Mass to thrust ratio" is speculative, there is also such a thing as delta. A ship with a smaller mass spends much less delta on changing course, with equal thrust-to-weight ratio - therefore, smaller ships, other things being equal, have a much greater potential for maneuver, and not just movement. Moreover, with an increase in size and mass, the amount of "useful delta" does not grow at all linearly, but from a certain border it begins to fall altogether.

Secondly, there is such a thing as economic feasibility. To throw several large ships and a swarm of small ones into battle, having approximately the same fire potential and cost - the swarm will win with a crushing score in the end, because the loss of one large ship is incomparable in terms of resource losses with the loss of a bunch of flyers, both economically and in the lives of specialists. As well as the loss of combat capabilities from the loss of one ship will have a greater effect on combat effectiveness than the loss of several units of vehicles.

The limitation, primarily in technology, is the ability to put serious weapons on the flyer and deliver them in the right quantities to the battlefield. This is true for defensive drones too - smaller drones have much less heat storage and dissipation capabilities, so other things being equal, if you don't have the technology to drastically combat overheating while still allowing you to put them on a drone, instead of a drone with an autolaser, it's better put this autolaser on the ship itself.

The next question is purely operational level drones in space. And this is complete nonsense. Unless you have Artificial Consciousness, which is cheap and practical enough to put in every drone, automata will be hardwired to coordination stations. Simply because automation and AI perform well only in a narrow, clearly defined list of situations, and shamelessly lose in everything else. And this means the need for coordinators to be within the operational pause next to the swarm, so that he would be able to act effectively.

So if the defensive swarm is the prerogative of large ships (but I don’t think that ALL ships - such a system is very expensive both in terms of logistics and on demand for specialists), then attacking swarms will require coordinators "in place" - those who will, in fact, go into battle with him. And here an attempt to tie control to the uterus would be idiotic, because a large specialized ship is vulnerable, and its destruction will mean the loss of the entire group. And the decentralization of the swarm just returns to the concept I described, when small attacking aircraft actually turn into a swarm of attacking specialized drones and their much smaller coordinators.

So, although it has changed, small manned aviation in space has prospects. Another thing is that it will definitely not be a cinematic-fantasy "puff-puff" under a laser show.

[gaerzi]

Picture a pinecone. You've got a central stem around which are arrayed bract scales. I figure a star warship would be like this. The central stem carries the warp drive or whatever is needed for FTL travel (assuming it cannot easily be miniaturized) and surplus equipment. The bract scales detach and serve as the starship's weapon and sensor systems. In combat they form a swarm around the stem. Out of combat they are grouped together to simplify logistics and maintenance.

That's how I'd see interceptors in space, rather than a direct transposition of the naval aircraft carrier.

[G. Janssen]

That's both completely wrong and off-topic.

Yes. It is technically off topic. But it was using it to suggest that the high attrition rate among Tenoin is also deliberate. A form of population control. What can I say? I'm evil. I know.

All regiments needed to do was lie down and spread out a bit. It improves aim a lot and presents a much smaller target. Exposing your men as a solid meat wall to enemy fire is either dumb or deliberate. I go with deliberate. A musket can be loaded while lying down. I once asked one of the people who do reenactments. He showed me. It did take him a lot longer while laying down though, he said. I told him to practice more.

And about the presence of convicts... I will give three examples to keep it short.

One incident happened during the Peninsular War in Spain and Portugal. One British army that had many criminals in its ranks, men who had been given a choice between prison / execution or joining the army, marched under one General Arthur Wellesley.

When Wellesley received a new draft of such men in 1809, he said "I don't know what effect these men will have on the enemy, but by God, they terrify me."

And after his army looted Vitoria in Northern Spain in 1813, he wrote a letter with complaints. One of the things he wrote was "We have in the service the scum of the earth as common soldiers".

Wellesley would later be known as the first Duke of Wellington and kick Bonaparte's fat little Corsican butt. His quotes about the Peninsular war then became famous.

Convicts were also quite often sent on 'special' missions.

An amusing example is Colonel Tate's "Black Legion", which invaded Wales in February 1797. It was made up of French convicts. Tate was an American though.

The plan of attack was an idea by General Lazare Hoche. Hoche had also used it during a failed attack on Ireland a couple of months earlier. The idea was that a force would land in a relatively unprotected part of the British Isles and start a guerilla war.

The invaders of both expeditions were recruited from galleys and prisons, promised full enjoyment of their booty, immunity from any and all crimes, and a remission of all past sentences.

And to make things cross the line of the absurd, the murderers, rapists and robbers were to proclaim themselves the "avengers of liberty and enemies of tyrants" to their future victims among the British population. To ensure that there would always be enough men to continue the guerilla warfare, they were ordered to open any prisons they came across and replenish their ranks with fresh supplies of indiginous criminals.

The magnificent plan failed. After seeing a local militia on February 24th (the convicts' first encounter with enemy armed forces) the French avengers of liberty surrendered without firing a single shot. The full story can be found in "Napoleon and the Invasion of England", volume 1 by Wheeler & Broadley. The book can be viewed on the internet.

And then there are the Prussians... But they are their own thread, so enough about them.

The third example is therefore that very famous (and indeed very professional) French legion that even exists today and continues to have a surprising high number of (foreign) undesirables in its ranks. An acquintance of mine served in it to avoid prison for tax evasion. He's bonkers (even more than I am), but his stories about his time as a legionnaire are great.

Oh, talking about stories: will you write more fan fiction? I really enjoyed your stories and am particularly hoping that I can read more about Nathan and the lost diral.

[dragoongfa]

snip

I want to write, the problem is that I don't have the time right now; a full night shift job is terrible for both one's sleep schedule and free time.

As for the rest, I mostly disagree but I don't want to go into it at the moment; suffice to say that all armies have employed penal and criminal battalions at many points in time, especially in times of need. I know for certain that a majority of Greek inmates were drafted during WW2, the sources I have read say that most volunteered after the Italians attacked; the point I want to make isn't that criminal elements weren't pressed into service but that all armies of the time conscripted people at will in times of war.

[G. Janssen]

I want to write, the problem is that I don't have the time right now; a full night shift job is terrible for both one's sleep schedule and free time.

Yes, former coworkers told me the same thing. And that it gets more difficult as one gets older.

As for the rest, I mostly disagree

Not a problem. Disagreement is good. *Fetches boxing gloves.*

but I don't want to go into it at the moment;

Also not a problem. *Puts boxing gloves back.*

suffice to say that all armies have employed penal and criminal battalions at many points in time, especially in times of need. I know for certain that a majority of Greek inmates were drafted during WW2, the sources I have read say that most volunteered after the Italians attacked;

Yes, they can be remarkably patriottic.

the point I want to make isn't that criminal elements weren't pressed into service but that all armies of the time conscripted people at will in times of war.

Yes? But isn't that what I wrote? That convicts were given a choice? To either serve their sentence or serve in the army. I wouldn't call that being pressed. I have to reread my post.

What I tried to write is that aristocrats, who formed the officers corps, would very often look down on such men and consider them completely expendable. Even going as far sometimes as sending them on suicide missions out of disgust and that the higher-ups often had no problem with that whatsoever. That meant that one of the purposes (if done deliberately) or at least consequences of war was emptying the prisons and the slums.

[Tamri]

Picture a pinecone. You've got a central stem around which are arrayed bract scales. I figure a star warship would be like this. The central stem carries the warp drive or whatever is needed for FTL travel (assuming it cannot easily be miniaturized) and surplus equipment. The bract scales detach and serve as the starship's weapon and sensor systems. In combat they form a swarm around the stem. Out of combat they are grouped together to simplify logistics and maintenance.

That's how I'd see interceptors in space, rather than a direct transposition of the naval aircraft carrier.

Basically, I got something similar. The carrier is like a tanker with a mobile repair base, and an air wing on an external modular suspension, covered in front with an anti-garbage screen - otherwise it is impossible to place a large number of vehicles on the carrier, and even more so it is impossible to quickly release or land this air wing. The scheme that was shown in the Infinity Warfare or the Space Battleship Yamato 2199 does not cause anything but Homeric laughter, it is long, unreliable and complicated. Oddly enough, Star Wars aircraft carriers are closer to the truth than the "realistic" options...

[Tamri]

First, you should not consider people who lived earlier as idiots, just because they had less fundamental knowledge and historically conditioned experience, but it is worth remembering that military science develops over time. What is absolutely obvious to the most recent civilian now, at that time was not obvious even to specialists - because there was no knowledge, accepted and tested decisions and, most importantly, historical experience.

Secondly, as far as I remember, the firearms of the period you indicated are distinguished by: low range, poor accuracy and long, difficult reloading, which is either completely impossible, or at least extremely difficult in the prone position.

Those. on the one hand, in order to reliably hit the enemy, one must approach him close and in a crowd, on the other hand, after a volley, a dash into a bayonet attack usually followed, and the side that decides to lie down in order to protect itself from enemy fire will be vulnerable in hand-to-hand combat.

[Demarquis]

@Tamri:
""Mass to thrust ratio" is speculative, there is also such a thing as delta. A ship with a smaller mass spends much less delta on changing course, with equal thrust-to-weight ratio - therefore, smaller ships, other things being equal, have a much greater potential for maneuver, and not just movement. Moreover, with an increase in size and mass, the amount of "useful delta" does not grow at all linearly, but from a certain border it begins to fall altogether."

Um, no? Mass is a measurable quantity, so is thrust. The ratio between them isn't "speculative" in any way. "Delta" simply means "change", as in the engineering term "Delta V", change in velocity, or acceleration. I think you may have "Delta" confused with fuel, which indeed smaller ships use less of to change their course than a larger, more massive ship would. But in order to equal less mass, a smaller ship would also be restricted to smaller weapons, less protection, reduced sensors, etc. In other words one less massive ship is probably less combat capable than one larger one. If you think in terms of "Delta V required to accelerate a given weapon load, and associated infrastructure", then several smaller ships would be required to equal the combat potential of one larger one. If the total mass of the smaller ships is equal to the total mass of the one larger one, the delta v (and the fuel requirements) should be the same. Or, to put it another way, it takes exactly the same thrust to mass ratio to accelerate 1 kg by 1 km/second as it does 100,000 kgs, or any other weight.

"Secondly, there is such a thing as economic feasibility. To throw several large ships and a swarm of small ones into battle, having approximately the same fire potential and cost - the swarm will win with a crushing score in the end, because the loss of one large ship is incomparable in terms of resource losses with the loss of a bunch of flyers, both economically and in the lives of specialists. As well as the loss of combat capabilities from the loss of one ship will have a greater effect on combat effectiveness than the loss of several units of vehicles."

Sorry, this also makes no sense (unless you mean to say that one large ship is more vulnerable than many small ones in the sense of being a single target). If the squadron (I won't call it a swarm yet) of small ships masses the same as the larger one, packs the same total weapon load, then they should require the same materials cost and the same crew requirements (actually, the squadron expends more, because there will be some redundancies that putting everything into one hull would eliminate). Again, if the total weapon load is the same, then the loss of combat effectiveness will be the same (actually, losing the squadron is worse, because a squadron of small ships can potentially be deployed to many locations, providing a greater degree of strategic flexibility, while a large ship can only be deployed to one).

"The limitation, primarily in technology, is the ability to put serious weapons on the flyer and deliver them in the right quantities to the battlefield. This is true for defensive drones too - smaller drones have much less heat storage and dissipation capabilities, so other things being equal, if you don't have the technology to drastically combat overheating while still allowing you to put them on a drone, instead of a drone with an autolaser, it's better put this autolaser on the ship itself."

This again is wrong. If the squadron has many smaller lasers, and the large ship has fewer larger lasers, then the "lasing potential" of the two are nearly identical. Therefore the total waste heat generated is identical, and the total amount of heat sink required (or radiator square footage) is identical. All a squadron of small ships does really is disperse the weapon and other systems of a larger ship across a number of mobile platforms. It's exactly as if you divided up the larger ship into smaller units.

"The next question is purely operational level drones in space. And this is complete nonsense. Unless you have Artificial Consciousness, which is cheap and practical enough to put in every drone, automata will be hardwired to coordination stations. Simply because automation and AI perform well only in a narrow, clearly defined list of situations, and shamelessly lose in everything else. And this means the need for coordinators to be within the operational pause next to the swarm, so that he would be able to act effectively."

Citation required. Why would you think this? Human soldiers are trained in any of a number of narrowly defined professional specializations ("Pilot" being one of them). What's so hard about automating the detection, tracking, firing and maneuvering systems on a ship? The only thing you can't automate, in theory, is the subjective decisions like "How much risk should we expose ourselves to before we open fire?" That, you can't automate. Everything else is, in theory, just an extended decision tree.

"So if the defensive swarm is the prerogative of large ships (but I don’t think that ALL ships - such a system is very expensive both in terms of logistics and on demand for specialists), then attacking swarms will require coordinators "in place" - those who will, in fact, go into battle with him. And here an attempt to tie control to the uterus would be idiotic, because a large specialized ship is vulnerable, and its destruction will mean the loss of the entire group. And the decentralization of the swarm just returns to the concept I described, when small attacking aircraft actually turn into a swarm of attacking specialized drones and their much smaller coordinators."

Maybe, it would depend on the tech level and the specific operational circumstance. I could certainly see such a scenario in a work of fiction being depicted very realistically (with the small quibble that true swarms don't have coordinating units, they work in an entirely decentralized fashion, which is why I have been referring to "squadrons" up to this point--swarms are a very specialized thing).

@gaerzi: "Picture a pinecone. You've got a central stem around which are arrayed bract scales. I figure a star warship would be like this. The central stem carries the warp drive or whatever is needed for FTL travel (assuming it cannot easily be miniaturized) and surplus equipment. The bract scales detach and serve as the starship's weapon and sensor systems. In combat they form a swarm around the stem. Out of combat they are grouped together to simplify logistics and maintenance."

This is a really cool idea, with a lot of fictional potential, but I would distinguish it from two other things: 1) This isn't "space fighters" as this trope is commonly depicted in popular works, and 2) This isn't a "drone swarm" as currently being developed by the US and other militaries.

Call it "modular combat" or "modular deployment". Modules which are self-contained weapons platforms temporarily deployed from the mother ship, networked together so as to provide coordinated fire, and which then return when the combat is done. You could call it a squadron of drones if they are unmanned. The difference between this, and a squadron of support ships is that they attach directly to the mother ship, and remain relatively close by.